Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/23/2005, PH - 1 - ADOPTION OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
counat I'U`D` 8-23-05 j agenda oepmt M C1TY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville,Director of Community Developme t Prepared By; Michael Codron,Associate Pla SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt a resolution approving the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) with the following components: a) Approval of the Planning Commission Draft of the AASP with modifications; and, b) Approval of General Plan amendments to the Land Use Map, the Urban Reserve Line, and the Street Classification Map;and, c) Adoption of Findings of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures for the AASP, including Findings of Overriding Consideration. 2) Introduce an ordinance to adopt the development standards. contained in the AASP and rezone those properties in the Airport Area that.are currently within the City, and pre-zone the unincorporated properties. 3) Adopt a resolution establishing area-specific development impact fees for transportation system improvements and.plan preparation. 4) Adopt a resolution allowing Airport Area properties to pay.a fee in-lieu of dedicating open space.. REPORT4N-BRIEF The Council previously reviewed the Planning Commission Draft of the AASP on June 14 and July 26, 2005. The Council has directed several changes to the AASP, which are summarized in this report. These changes include expansion of the AASP boundaries south to Buckley Road and east of the Airport. Other significant changes include the modification of Tank Farm Road to an urban road with a continuous four lane cross-section, and the imposition of special setbacks along Buckley Road to allow for widening to four lanes if necessary in the future. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the AASP on August 17, 2005, and the results of their review will be presented to the Council during the public hearing on August 23, 2005. The resolution to adopt the AASP is included in Attachment 1, which also includes the required environmental findings. Attachment 2 includes an ordinance to adopt the AASP development Adoption of the Airport Area Specific.Plan Page 2 standards and to establish zoning and pre-zoning for Airport Area properties. Attachment 3 establishes the AASP development impact fees for transportation system improvements and plan preparation. Attachment 4 includes a resolution to .establish a fee in-lieu of open space dedication, which is required of all Airport Area properties. DISCUSSION Situation In early 2005, a Public Hearing Draft of the AASP was created for review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held public hearings on March 9 and April 13, 2005. The Commission made modifications to the plan, which were incorporated into the Planning Commission Draft of the AASP, This draft was reviewed by the Council on June 14 and July 26, 2005. Staff is now recommending final approval of the AASP, with modifications as directed by Council and outlined in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). Review of Council Directed and Other Recommended Modifications The resolution to adopt the AASP outlines the modifications to the Specific Plan that have been directed by Council (Attachment 1, Section 3): This resolution also includes some additional modifications that are recommended by staff. The following is a brief overview of all proposed changes to the Planning Commission Draft of the AASP, following the order of the resolution. Alternative 31and Uses During the public hearing on June 14, 2005, the Council voted 5-0 to revise the land use plan (AASP Figure 4-1), based on Alternative 3 in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The revision extends the boundaries of the Airport Area south to Buckley Road and east of the airport. As reported to the Council during the July 26, 2005 hearing, discussions have been held with the affected property owners to advise them of the application of the AASP to their properties. The Alternative 3 land. use plan is consistent with the urban designations contained in the County's SLO Area plan. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)Requested Changes The ALUC met on May 18, 2005 to review the AASP.. The ALUC expressed support for the Plan, and requested several minor changes to the document. The requested modifications are consistent with AASP policies and the City's goal of supporting the Airport. Exhibit D of the resolution adopting the AASP (Attachment 1) includes these changes. The ALUC will be. reviewing the AASP again on Wednesday, August 17, 2005. Staff is asking the ALUC to determine that the AASP is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, as required by State law. Staff will report the ALUC's action to.the Council during the hearing on August 23, 2005. ,z i Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan._ _Page 3 Program 3.3.18 On June 14, 2005, the Council approved the following program, as recommended by staff. The program had been deleted by the Planning Commission; however, the Natural Resources Manager explained that expansion of wetlands north of Tank Farm Road had always been anticipated as one way to mitigate for wetland losses on other parts of the Unocal property. Program 3.3.18: Expand the existing major wetland north of Tank Farm Road to the northwest and provide a suitable upland edge, in conjunction with redevelopment of the part of the Unocal property that contained company offices. Transportation Mitigation Measures The threshold for requiring participation in Transportation Demand Management strategies was lowered from 50 employees to 25 employees. The Council also directed staff to add a new program to Chapter 6 to require adjacent development to provide transit facilities suchas bus stops with turnouts, transit pads and shelters. These measures are required to help mitigate the traffic impacts of development under the AASP. Water and Sewer Service South of the 1994 Urban Reserve Line(URL) Mitigation Measure PS-1.1 will be implemented by adding Policies 7.2.1 and 7.3.1 to require development south of the 1994 URL and east of the airport to submit an engineering feasibility study for water and wastewater service. Agriculture Policies The expansion of the AASP boundary south to Buckley Road incorporates agricultural land.. During the July 26, 2005 meeting, the Council directed staff to add a new goal and policy to the text of the AASP to promote the preservation of this agricultural land. Tank.Farm Road Revised Cross-Sections and Buckley Road Set-Back.Requirements During the July 26, 2005 meeting, Council directed changes to AASP road standards for Tank Farm Road and Buckley Road. First, the Council directed staff to revise the cross-sections for Tank Farm Road to show a four-lane, urban road with a consistent cross-section between Broad Street and South Higuera. Figure 6-7 will be deleted and Figure 676 will be revised as follows: Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan _ _ _ _ Page 4 Figure 6-6 Parkway Arterial= Typical Urban Tank Farm Road Cross-Section (4-Lanes) ;1 n 51W Way Bike Travel Travel Median Travel Trowel BIke Way. S" 1.8m 1.6m 2.0m 3.5m 3.5m 4Am 3.5m 3.5m 2..0m 1.6m 1.8m 0.6 m Ob in Shy dia. Shy dkc 23.6 in Traveled Way 30A m(1001 ROW The difference between the urban four-lane cross-section for Tank Farm Road and the previously proposed rural two-lane cross-section is-the conversion of Class 1 bike paths on both sides of the street, to a more urban, Class 2 bike lane with parkways and sidewalks. Standards 6.4.2.1 through 6.4.2.4 (AASP Pages 6-17, 6-18) will be revised to reflect this revised cross-section. Second, the Council directed staff to provide setbacks along Buckley Road so that the roadway could be expanded to a four-lane road, if future conditions ever warrant a change based on level of service conditions. This direction is to be implemented through a revision to Table 4.7 as shown below. AASP Figures 6-8, 6-9 and 6-10 will also be amended_ to illustrate the Buckley Road setback requirement. Table 4.7 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specffre Plan SETBACK STANDARDS Setback Distance Business ParkS� Manu&=ring Between: Commerdal Buildings and property 5 m (16 feet) 5 m 06 feet) 5 m (16 feet) lines along streets(a) Parking lots and property 3 m 0 0 feet) 1.5 m (5 feet) 1.5 rn (5 feet) lines along streets Buildings and property lines between adjacent None None None parcels(b) Parking lou and property lines between adjacent 1.5 m (5 feet) None None parcels(c) setbacks from property All Physical Improvements—4.6m 0 5 feet) lines along Buckley Road Buildings—IOm(32 feet) —All Zones Parking Lots—8m(25 feet) Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan _. _ Page 5 Airport Compatibility Policies Revisions to Chapter 4 policies for airport compatibility are provided in the resolution to adopt the AASP. These changes are necessary in response to the expansion of the Airport Area's boundaries. Alternative Energy The Council directed staff to change the second sentence of Section 7.4 to provide encouragement for all fortes of alternative energy production as follows: Although there are no area-wide plans for wind, geothermal, solar or biomass energy production, development of such energy resources should be encouraged where feasible and consistent with the City's Conservation and Open Space Element. Unocal"Local"Road As discussed at the July 26; 2005 meeting, the proposed roadway design and use of the Unocal collector road is more consistent with the local road designation than with the collector road designation. As a result, the Primary Circulation Plan (Figure 64) will be revised to designate the Unocal collector road as a local road and "collector" will be dropped from the name (Attachment 5). Mitigation Measure Appendix Exhibit F of the resolution adopting the AASP (Attachment 1) lists all of the mitigation measures from the Specific Plan that are not directly incorporated into the Specific Plan. Although the text of the AASP includes policy support for all of the proposed mitigation measures, certain specific requirements were not written directly into the document because of their length. Including these measures in an appendix provides a convenient reference for users of the document. .Bank Headquarters Footnote#1 to Table 4.3 (AASP Page 4-19) establishes floor area limits for certain ancillary uses in the Business Park zone. One of these ancillary uses is branch bank services. The City has held pre-application discussions with SESLOC for a proposal to construct their new corporate headquarters near the corner of Broad Street and Industrial Way. This has been a long anticipated project that was specifically allowed for in the 2002 draft of the AASP, but revisions to the City's commercial zoning standards has now created some confusion. Staff is recommending that Footnote ##1 be revised to include the following statement: Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters. The purpose of this change is to ensure that the proposed corporate office, as the primary use for the site, will not be subject to floor area limitations intended for convenience uses. Common Interest Subdivisions Table 4.4, Parcel Dimensions (AASP Page 4-20), includes standards such as lot size, width and depth. Such standards do not normally apply to common interest subdivisions such as �=s Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan Page 6 commercial condominium projects. As a result, staff recommends including a footnote (c) to Table 4.4, as follows: Common interest subdivisions are permitted subject to the requirements of the City's Subdivision Regulations. Area-Specific Development Impact Fees As presented at the July 26, 2005 meeting, the adoption of Alternative 3 expands the boundaries of the AASP and spreads the costs over a larger group of fee payers. Even after factoring in added costs as discussed below, fees for everyone in the Airport Area decrease by about 25% as summarized below: Airport Area "Add-On" -Fees Ner!�6o&gquare Feet Fees Decrease -Original Revised _ Amount F_ Percent Business Park $4,991 $3,896 $1,095 22% Service Commercial 3,871 2_,988 883 23% .Maunfacturing 904 675 229_ _ 25% Note: These fees are in addition to community-wide impact fees for water, sewer and transportation as well as allready adopted area-specific fees for Water and sewer improvements. While costs go down due to the broader base upon which to distribute costs, this is partially offset by added costs as summarized below: Transportation . . Original Revised Increase Tank Farm Road Widening 4,953,635 -7,250,751 2,297,116 Unocal Local Road 746,582 850,000 103,418 Santa Fe Extension 1,403,646 1,775,817 372,171 Buckley Road Extension 664,207 .2,906,943 2;236,736 Bike-Paths 2,003,295 2,003,295 0 Total - $9,771-9365 1 $14 780 806 1 $5,009,441 As reflected above, the main cost differences are for the Tank Farm Road widening and extension of Buckley Road between South Higuera Street and Vachel Road. 1. Tank Faem Road Widening. The cost increase is due to two factors: revising Tank Farm to a four-lane urban road and re-assessing cost assumptions to add improvements for the Acacia Creek crossing. 2. Buckley Road. The County recently performed an analysis of costs for this extension, resulting in a $2.9 million estimate (including right-of-way acquisition). Accordingly, we recommend using this more up-to-date, detailed analysis as the basis in setting this fee. Updated tables for Chapter 8 of the AASP are provided in Attachment 6. i Adoption,of the Airport Area Specific Plan Page 7 Open Space In-Lieu Fees The City's General Plan identifies the Airport Area as the ultimate southern boundary of the City. Land Use Element Policy 7.4 says that annexation of the Airport Area shall be consistent with General Plan objective for maintaining a greenbelt composed of rural, open space uses. Policy 7.4 requires annexed properties to contribute towards greenbelt protection through land dedication or through the payment of an in-lieu fee, which would be used by the City to protect greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. In addition to Policy 7.4 and other greenbelt objectives identified in the General Plan, the AASP EIR (Mitigation Measure LU-5.1) requires dedication of open space land or payment of in-lieu fees to secure open space land outside the URL at a ratio of no less than 1:1 to mitigate the loss of prime agricultural soils. Since 1988, all interim annexations of Airport Area property have been required to dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee at this 1:1 ratio. Provided in Attachment 4 is a resolution formally establishing the in-lieu fee for open space dedication based on recent acquisitions of open space easements in the area at $2,500 pre acre. The resolution formalizes the process for determining the in-lieu fee amount and. implements Mitigation Measure LU-5.1. Dedication of land or payment of the fee is required at the time of development, and is based on a formula that ties the fee to new floor area based.on floor area coverage ratios of 20% for service commercial and manufacturing uses and 30010 for business park uses, summarized as follows: Ppen SpAce000 Fee Per KSF Business Park $390 Service Commercial 574 -Maunfacturing 522 By using square feet instead of the less precise site size (acres), in-lieu fees are paid based on project size using the same basis (added square footage) as used for other proposed fees, and reflect expected development intensities in the Airport Area when streets, creeks and other unbuildable land are taken into consideration. The fee amount that has been established through the interim annexation process is $2,500 per acre. As noted above, recent negotiations for conservation easements indicates that this amount represents an appropriate average cost for various open space, land types within the greenbelt area. Environmental Review The Final EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans was certified by the Council on October 12, 2004, when the Margarita Area Specific Plan was approved. Although no action is required relative to the EIR, the Council must make Findings for Significant Environmental Effects and Findings of Overriding Consideration, and must approve the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the RASP. Exhibit A of the /- 7 Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan Page 8 resolution adopting the AASP (Attachment 1) lists the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project and includes the required environmental findings. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is attached to the resolution as Exhibit B. The following statement from Section 6 of Exhibit A (Attachment 1) is a Finding of Overriding Consideration that was not previously adopted when the EIR was certified. This additional finding addresses the new impacts associated with Alternative 3. Consistency Between City and County Plans: The project incorporates portions of Alternative 3 in order to insure consistency between City and County plans for the area south of the URL and east of the airport. The implementation of the land use program outlined in Alternative 3 fully mitigates Impact LU-2 however,. it also results in significant and unavoidable impacts to land use, traffic and public services. Nevertheless, consistency between City and County plans is considered critical for achieving other important General Plan goals such as the establishment of a permanent greenbelt south of the City, agricultural preservation, higher quality urban design, improved drainage and waterway management, provision of adequate public facilities, improved airport safety and mitigation for project related traffic impacts. FISCAL IMPACT 1. Ongoing Cost and Revenues. When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis of on-going costs and revenues, which found that overall the General Plan. was fiscally balanced. If Alternative 3 is incorporated into the AASP, new costs and revenue .sources are anticipated; however, given the fiscal nature of the type of land uses added under Alternative 3, the on-going fiscal impact is, likely to be more favorable than anticipated under the current General Plan. 2. Infrastructure Costs. As discussed above, the Public Facilities Financing Plan (Chapter 8) has been prepared to assure that new development in the AASP will pay for the infrastructure needed to serve it. ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine that extensive revisions to the AASP are needed and refer the project back to the Planning Commission. This alternative is not recommended unless the changes to the Specific Plan require additional environmental analysis. At this time, none of the proposed changes are outside of the scope of the EIR. 2. Continue the project to a date uncertain and provide staff with direction on additional changes that need to be made to the AASP before adoption. This alternative is not recommended because no additional changes are anticipated or recommended at this time. Adoption of the Airport Area Specific;Plan Page 9. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I Resolution Approving the AASP Exhibit A: Environmental Findings Exhibit B- Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan Exhibit C- AASP Figure 4-1; Land Use Designations Exhibit D: Airport Land Use Commission requested changes Exhibit I E: Revised i9ed AASP Figure 4-5 Exhibit F- Proposed AASP Appendix A (Required Mitigation Measures) Attachment 2: Ordinance, Establishing Zoning and Pre-Zoning Attachment 3: Resolution Approving,AASP Development Impact Fees Attachment 4: Resolution Approving.Iri-Lieu Fees for Open Space ' Attachment 5: Revised Primary Circul-ati-on.Plan, AASP Figure 6-1 Attachment 6: Revised Public Facilities Financing Tables (Tables 8.1-8.7) Attachment 7: June 14, 2005, Council Minutes Attachment 8: July 26, 2005, Council Minutes COUNCIL READING FILE A. Council Agenda Report and Attachments from June 14, 2005 B. Council Agenda Report and, Anachrhent from July 26, 2005 C. Final Program Environmental Impact Report D. Public Correspondence Submitted to Planning Commission LAAASRawp(CAR-8-23-05v2).doc Attahment 1 City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE AIPRORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP,AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION (APPLICATION NO. SP,GP/R,ER 116-98) WHEREAS, the City General Plan (Land Use Element Policies LU 2.3 and LU 2.3.1) requires the preparation of a specific plan for the Airport Area prior to annexation and further development, and sets specific requirements for information to be included in the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains general goals and policies relating to growth and development in the Airport Area, which may be implemented in a variety of ways, including the specific plan procedure as outlined by California State Law (State Government Code 65450 et.seq.); and WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo,with the participation of property owners, citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties, has prepared a draft specific plan for the Airport Area pursuant to the General Plan and the State Government.Code; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005, and again on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the recommendations of staff and consider the Specific Plan map, text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the. Specific Plan for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Specific Plan with findings of significant environmental effects, mitigation measures and findings of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, on June 14, July 26, and August 23, 2005, the City Council held public hearings to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff, and to consider the Specific Plan map, text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires that a specific plan be consistent with the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, as a result of its deliberations, the City Council has decided to adopt the Airport Area Specific Plan. Atta:hment 1 City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2 Airport Area Specific Plan NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the.City of San Luis Obispo, the following: SECTION 1. EIR Findings. The City Council hereby adopts findings of significant environmental effects, including,findings for a Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans (September 2003), as listed in Exhibit "A", with the incorporation of the mitigation measures and monitoring programs outlined in Exhibit `B", and based on the following findings: 1. The Final Program EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project. 2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has.been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in conjunction with the recommendation for certification of the Final Program EIR. 4. For each significant effect identified in the Final Program EIR under the categories of Land Use and Aesthetics, Hydrology and Water Quality, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Cultural Resources and Cumulative Impacts, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project. 5. There are seven impacts identified in the EIR that, even after mitigation, are considered significant and unavoidable: (1) Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses, (2) Impact LU-6: Change in Views, (3) Impact T-2 (Alternative 3): LOS in Excess of LOS D, (4) Impact PS-1 (Alternative 3): Impacts on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities, (5) Impact PS-2 (Alternative 3): Impacts on Sewer Mains and Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment Facilities, (6) Impact PS-3 (Alternative 3): Impacts on Storm Drainage Capacity, and (7) Growth Inducement: The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact. These significant effects identified in the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures included in the Final Program EIR. Consequently, Council has adopted findings for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as shown in Section 6 of Exhibit "A." SECTION 2. Specific Plan Approval. Pursuant to Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code and the City's General Plan, the City Council hereby approves the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan, subject to the following findings: 1. The specific plan is consistent with General Plan because it will direct all facets of future development of the Airport Area, including the distribution of land uses, the location and sizing of infrastructure, site planning, architectural guidelines, phasing, and the method of financing public improvements. The Specific Plan will provide for the type of growth and development envisioned by the General Plan for the Airport Area. Atta.hmant 1 City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 3 Airport Area Specific Plan 2. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable City ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered. 3. The types and intensity of land uses are designed to be consistent with the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan to ensure compatibility with airport operations. SECTION 3. Specific Plan Modifications. The Community Development Director shall cause the following changes to occur to the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan prior to its publication. 1. Figure 4-1, Land Use Designations, shall be modified to reflect Alternative 3 as described in the Final EIR, with the URL to be held north of the land designated.Agriculture, as shown in Exhibit C. All other AASP figures, tables and text shall be modified as necessary to reflect the boundaries and land use designations established by Figure 4-1, Exhibit C. 2. The AASP shall be revised to reflect the changes requested by the Airport Land Use Commission, as shown in Exhibit D. 3. 'The Conservation chapter program regarding expansion of wetlands north of Tank Farm Road, which was previously deleted by the Planning Commission, shall be replaced as follows:. Program 3.3.18: Expand the existing major wetland north of Tank Farm Road to the northwest and provide a suitable upland edge, in conjunction with redevelopment of the part of the Unocal property that contained company offices. 4. Standards 6.4.9.1 through 6.4.9.4 shall be revised to reduce the threshold for requiring participation in Transit Demand Management strategies from 50 employees to 25 employees. 5. Program 6.3.J shall be added to require development in the Airport Area to provide for transit facilities such as bus stops with turnouts, transit pads and shelters adjacent to new development as part of the development review process. 6. Mitigation Measure PS-1.1 will be implemented by adding Policies 7.2.1 and 7.3:1 to require development. south of the 1994 URL and east of the airport to submit an engineering feasibility study for water and wastewater service. 7. Goal 4.1.11: Agricultural Buffers shall be added as follows: Preservation of agricultural land and open space for on-going agricultural uses. .This is accomplished through the provision of buffers on urban land so land use conflicts are diminished. 8. Policy 4.2.7: Agriculture shall be as follows: Areas designated Agriculture are intended to encourage conservation of ,agricultural lands and continuation of agricultural uses and keeping of livestock where compatible with urban development. The sites designated as Agriculture in the Airport Area have historically been used for agricultural uses and are bordered by agricultural buffets on the parcels being developed with urban uses to insure compatibility between the uses. Attachment 1 City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 4 Airport Area Specific Plan 9. Figure 6-7 shall be deleted and Standards 6.4.2.1 through 6.4.2.4, and Figure 6-6 shall be revised to identify Tank Farm Road as an urban road with a continuous 4-lane section. 10. Figures 6-8 and 6-9, and Table 4.7 (Setback Standards), shall be revised to require setbacks for all physical improvements along Buckley Road in order to allow for the roadway to be widened to four lanes in the future, if such widening becomes necessary. Figure 6-10 shall be deleted. 11. Policy 4:5.1 regarding the Cluster Development Zone shall be revised as follows: The boundaries of the Airport Area, as defined in this specific plan, meet the open space requirements of the ALUP, and the area shown in Figure 4-5 qualifies as a Cluster Development Zone (CDZ). Figure 4-5 shall be revised as shown in Exhibit E. 12. Policy 4.5.2 regarding Airport Compatible Open Space on the Avila Ranch property shall be revised as follows'. The agricultural buffer along the southwest boundary of the Avila Ranch and Airport Area shall be maintained as Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS), per the requirements of the ALUP. 13. The second sentence of Section 7.4 shall be revised to provide encouragement for all forms of alternative energy production as follows: Although there are no area-wide plans for wind, geothermal, solar or biomass energy production, 'development of such energy resources should be encouraged where feasible and consistent with the City's Conservation and Open Space Element. 14. All required mitigation measures from the Final EIR that have not been directly incorporated into the Specific Plan shall be included in an Appendix of the Specific Plan; as shown in Exhibit F, and references to the appendix shall be made in the AASP where appropriate. 15. Footnote #1 to Table 4.3 (AASP Page 4-19) shall be revised to include the following. statement: Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters. 16. Table 4.4, Parcel Dimensions, shall be revised to include footnote(c),.as follows: Common interest subdivisions are permitted subject to the requirements of the City's Subdivision Regulations. 17. References to the Unocal Collector road, including the Primary Circulation Plan (Figure 6-1), shall be revised to designate the road as a`local" road. SECTION 4. General Plan Amendment..The City General Plan, including the Urban Reserve Line, the Land Use Element Map, and the Street Classification Map, shall be amended to reflect the adopted boundaries, land uses and streets approved as part of the Airport Area Specific Plan, as shown in "Exhibit C." /-13 Atta.hment 1 City Council Resolution No. (2.005 Series) Page 5 Airport Area Specific Plan On motion of , seconded by . __ ., and on the following roll call vote:_ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2005. Mayor David F: Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona an Lowell; City Attorney L•VWSP�=p m[council-filial].dm Atta.hment 1 — Exhibit A SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo (City) has decided to approve the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Master Facilities Plans(project). The City is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has certified a program environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to adopt findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: ■ changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified;in the EIR; ■ such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by that agency; or ■ specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible. In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a project without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding considerations; in which it balances the benefits of t_he project against the unavoidable environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social, economic, or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts(14 CCR 15093, Pub. Res. Code 21081). This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the approval of the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Master Facilities Plans and reflects the City's independent judgment. This document incorporates by reference the program EIR. The EIR, specific plans, related master facilities plans; and other portions of the administrative record are available for review at: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Mike Draze (805)781-7274 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations---_ -- - - - - - Ci(v of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and l July.2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Attnhment 1 Exhibit A SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Objectives As required by the City General Plan, each of the specific plans is intended to contain policies and standards that will facilitate appropriate development of land, protection of open space., and provision of adequate public facilities. The specific plans are more detailed than the general plan but less precise than subdivision maps or construction plans. The overall objective of the project is to adopt specific plans for the Airport and Margarita areas, pursuant to the City General Plan. Airport Area Specific Plan Objectives Airport Area Specific Plan objectives include: 11 identifying the infrastructure needed to provide city services to the area; ® facilitating the City's eventual annexation of the Airport area; ■ ensuring that planned land uses are compatible with airport operations and consistent with the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP); • accommodating businesses identified in the City's Targeted Industry Cluster Study that provide household-supporting incomes for San Luis Obispo residents; and ■ establishing goals and policies for open space protection, conservation, and restoration. Margarita Area Specific Plan Objectives Margarita Area Specific Plan objectives include: a accommodating a wide range of housing types, with an emphasis on housing affordable to those working in San Luis Obispo; ■ protecting substantial natural habitats,including creeks, hills; wetlands, and corridors between these habitats; ■ providing convenient access for residents to employment, basic shopping, recreation, and education through.both the location of land uses and the design of circulation features; Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo far the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 2 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans / Atta-hmant 1 - Exhibit A ■ accommodating research and light manufacturing jobs that can support local households in forms compatible with airport safety and neighboring residences; • ensuring that planned land uses are compatible with airport operations; and • ensuring consistency with San Luis Obispo County's Airport Land Use Plan. Proposed Project The proposed project includes implementation of the goals and policies contained in the Airport Area Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, Water System Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan Update, and Storm Drain Master Plan. Specific Plans The specific plans include the following designations: ■. designation of the Airport area for 2 hectares (7 acres) of Residential, 193.3 hectares (477.7 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 93.1 hectares (230.1 acres) of Business Park, 139.9 hectares (345.9 acres) of Open Space, and 145.3 hectares (359.1 acres) of Government Facility, for a total Airport Area of 606 hectares (1499 acres); E designation of the Margarita area for 75.4 hectares (186.2 acres) of Open Space, 10.5 hectares (25.9 acres) of Parks, 28.6 hectares (70.7 acres) of Residential, 1.3 hectare (3.1 acre) of Neighborhood Commercial, 0.4 hectare (.9 acre) of Special Use, 28.0 hectares (68.8 acres) of Business Park, and 19 hectares (47 acres) of Streets, for a total Margarita area of 168.7 hectares (416.1 acres); ■ extension of Prado Road to Broad Street; P extension of new commercial collector connecting Tank Farm Road and Prado Road; ® extension of Santa Fe Road from south of Tank Farm Road to Prado Road; m extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street; and ® widening of various existing roadways, including Prado Road, and Tank Farm Road. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 3 Julv 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans 17 - Atta.hrnent 1 - _ Exhibit A Water System Master Plan The Water System Master Plan describes improvements to the water treatment and distribution systems to meet Citywide General Plan development needs, including needs of the AirportArea. The following is a brief summary of substantial treatment plant and facilities improvements identified in the Water System Master Plan. Recommended Treatment Plant Improvements. The recommended treatment plant improvements are as follows: 4 Phase I: Perform a seismic evaluation of the existing treated water storage and clearwell facilities. ■ Phase 11: Add facilities to improve filtration rates, treatment processes, and emergency operations. ® Phase III: Monitor water levels at the forebay, improve efficiency of pump motors, evaluate means to protect thewater treatment plant from railroad accidents, and improve emergency standby power capacity. Recommended Distribution Improvements. The recommended distribution improvements are:. E a grid of 12-inch diameter mains: three traversing east to west and three north-south. mains connecting the existing 16- and 20-inch mains to the north (the mains will be located in the major roads); E adding a 757,000-liter (200,000-gallon) water tank in the Edna Saddle zone in the southwestern part of the city; and ■ adding a 4;542,000-liter (1;200,000-gallon) water tank in the Bishop zone to serve the Bishop zone. Wastewater Master Plan Update The City's Wastewater Master Plan Update addresses the city in its entirety; including the annexation areas. The plan identifies improvements to collection and treatment facilities that will be needed to provide wastewater service to future annexation areas and provides recommendations concerning Citywide wastewater system facilities. The Wastewater Master Plan Update identifies the following substantial reclamation facility and system improvements: ■ replacing the Howard Johnson and Tank Farm pump stations; installing approximately 31790 meters (12,400 feet) of new trunk sewer mains in the Airport area; Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and4 - July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /r/r Attachment 1 Exhibit A ■ installing 4,000 feet (1,219:2 meters) of 16-inch discharge pipe (required at the new tank farm facility); ■ installing approximately 9,400 meters (30,700 feet) of new trunk sewer mains in the Margarita area; and ® upgrading existing pump stations in the project area. Storm Drain Master Plan The Storm Drain Master Plan addresses the East Branch San Luis. Obispo Creek watershed. This watershed includes the Airport and Margarita areas as well as areas to the east. The features of the plan would, downstream of the Airport area, limit storm drainage flows at build-out to the level estimated for existing conditions, provide 100-year flood protection, provide for environmental enhancement. of stream corridors, and provide individual onsite or sub-regional detention basins that will serve the area, rather than a single regional detention basin. Previous project improvement recommendations included parallel, minor creek modifications as needed and permitted by the governing entity to enhance flood conveyance capacity. However, the City has determined that the existing creeks have capacity to sufficiently convey floodwaters. The Storm Drain Master Plan identifies the following recommended improvements: ® replacing bridges across Acacia Creek at Tank_ Farm Road and the East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek at Santa Fe Road and ® replacing and improving Tank Farm Creek culvert facilities at Tank Farm Road with a standard Caltrans two-span concrete slab bridge. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 5 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /-/9 Atta.hmant 1 Exhibit A SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The program EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA.Guidelines. As such, the EIR contains analysis, at a program level, of the basic issues that will be used in conjunction with subsequent tiered environmental documents for specific projects related to the Airport Area Specific Plan, the Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the related facilities master plans. Once the Airport Area Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the related facilities master plans are adopted by the City, the basic policy issues "will not need to be revisited by subsequent (second-tier) documents. The initial study and Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR were circulated to appropriate public agencies, organizations, and interested groups and individuals for a 30-day comment period that ran from May 16, 2000, to June 16, 2000. The draft EIR was released for an 80-day public and agency review period from February 15 through May 8, 2002. A public hearing on the draft EIR was held on May 8, 2002, at the joint Planning Commission/City Council hearing rooms in the City. A final"EIR, which provided responses to the written and verbal comments received during the-review of the draft EIR and included revisions to the draft EIR, was prepared and made available to the public and agencies on September 19, 2003. Since September 19, 2003, additional comments were provided in writing and through public testimony; responses to these additional comments since publication of the final EIR were prepared and made part of the administrative record. SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Introduction This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings for each.significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: ■ replacing changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant en"vironmental effects identified in the EIR; • such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by that agency; or ® specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 6 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Atta.hment 1 Exhibit A Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. This section identifies the following environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, as identified in the program EIR: ■ impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project; and ■ impacts that can be reduced; but not to a less-than-significant level, through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore, remain significant and unavoidable. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear in the draft EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an impact or reducing it to a less-than-significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to the proposed project is considered in Section 5 ofthis document. Land Use and Aesthetics Impact LU-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies and Agreements The project expands the urban reserve to encompass all land designated for urban use by the County. Thus, the URL extends down to Buckley in the area west of the airport, and across Broad Street to land east of the airport. Thi' s expansion of the urban reserve, and the re- designation of lands on the City's General Plan Map in that area from Open Space to Business Park and Services and Manufacturing, would be inconsistent.with City policy to limit its urban expansion to the current urban reserve. Although not consistent with City plans and policies, the proposed urban reserve is consistent with the County's plans and policies. In addition, by designating a buffer of Agriculture and Open Space land north of Buckley Road and within the URL, the proposed project implements City policy for providing a permanent greenbelt along its southern boundary. The impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses The 1993 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Update EIR addressed the fact that annexation and development of the area in accordance with the City General Plan designations would result in the loss of agricultural resources. That loss was identified.as a significant and irreversible adverse impact that could not be mitigated. Policies were incorporated into the Land Use Element to help compensate for productivity lost as a result of the conversion of agricultural lands within the urban reserve. Specifically, City policy requires direct dedication of open space areas, or payment of an in-lieu fee, for annexed land. Findings of Fact and Siatement of Aherriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and7 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /—4;/ Attachment 1 Exhibit A The primary target of this exaction is to protect open space and agricultural lands outside, but especially those contiguous to, the City's URL. The concept is to create a permanent open space buffer/greenbelt around the city that prevents continued expansion of the urban area onto valuable agricultural and open space resources. For certain locations, the general plan calls for the open space protection area to be equal in size to the developed area or to be four times the size of the developed area. The ratio for the Margarita area follows from the land use designations (approximately 40% open space, excluding parks). The General Plan does not set a specific ratio for the Airport Area. The in-lieu fee that has been set for the so-called interim annexations probably can achieve a ratio of 1:1 on average. Based on a review of mapping of the State's Department of Conservation farmland categories, the majority of the proposed project area (347.2 hectares [858 acres], or 61%) consists of lands with little or no agricultural value (i.e., designated by the state for Urban/Built-up or Other). Table 3A-2 shows the acreage breakdown for the project area by category. The project area has relatively limited amounts of Prime Farmland (26.3 hectares [65 acres], or 5%) and Farmland of Local Importance (16.1 hectares [40 acres], or 3%), and no lands designated for Farmlands of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland. Farmland of Local Potential and Grazing Land, two categories with lower agricultural value, compose a larger ,percentage of the area(21% and I I%, respectively). Although past development and current use result in relatively low farmland classifications under the California Department of Conservation categories, the underlying soils types have the characteristics of prime soil, according to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, for most of the gently sloping part of the Margarita area and for nearly all the Airport area, excluding the Unocal property impacted by soil contamination due to the 1926 explosion and subsequent fire. The Specific Plans show urban use for approximately 12.1 hectares (30 acres) of prime farmland actively cultivated north of Tank Farm Road. There are also cultivated lands just west of the middle of the Margarita Area. The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan, so, as anticipated in the 1993 LUE EIR, annexation and development of the area will adversely impact agricultural resources. Altogether, the proposed project will result in the loss of approximately 14.1 hectares (35 acres) of Prime Farmland (in the northwest corner of the Airport area), and 109.2 hectares (270 acres) of Farmland of Local Potential (primarily in the Margarita area and along Broad Street). Most agricultural lands that will be lost to development have been used primarily for grazing. The Airport Area Specific Plan's designation for Open Space in the central portion of the Airport area will protect areas of Prime Farmland and Farmlands of Local Importance that are actively cultivated. No areas under Williamson Act contracts are affected by the proposed project. While the loss of prime agricultural land is limited, the conversion of any lands containing prime agricultural soils associated with the proposed project is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cir•of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and g July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /' Atta.hment 1 Exhibit A Mitigation While the loss of prime agricultural soils to urban uses is irreversible and cannot be mitigated,. the following mitigation is recommended to help compensate for the loss of agricultural productivity. The intent of the mitigation is to enhance the opportunities for continued agriculture in the unincorporated areas outside the City's URL. Mitigation Measure LU-51: Dedicate Open Space Land or Pay Ins-Lieu Fees to Secure Open Space Easements on Agricultural Land outside the URL at Ratio of No Less than 1A As a condition of annexation and development within the Airport and Margarita Areas, developers shall be required to dedicate open space land or pay in-lieu fees to secure open space easements on agricultural land outside the URL at.a ratio of no less than 1:1. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. However, the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. A statement of overriding consideration for this impact is made in Section 6. .Impact LU-6: Change in Views The proposed project will result in the change of character of the Plan areas from a .generally semi-rural setting to an urban developed setting. The issue of aesthetic impacts was reviewed during the adoption of the General Plan. The conclusion was reached within Section 9.0 of the General Plan EIR that urbanization would irreversibly change the visual character of the south end of the city from that of a low-density semi-rural area to a more intensely developed, suburban area. While substantial design standards are contained in the Airport Area Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the City General Plan (including the preservation of open space, hills, and development design standards), these do not change this fundamental conclusion of the General Plan EIR. No feasible mitigation exists to eliminate the impact. associated with the conversion of a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation No mitigation measures are feasible. Finding: No Feasible Mitigation is Available. The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available and that this impact is significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding consideration for this impact is made in Section 6: . Findings of Fact and Staremenr of Overriding Considerations - Cin•of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 9 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans 1-;Z3 Attalhment 1 Exhibit A Impact LU-7: Potential Increase in Daytime/Nighttime Light and Glare The development of the Airport and Margarita areas for urban uses will result in an increase in daytime/nighttime light and glare within the area. These'increases will be the result of new lighting at commercial, business park, and residential uses, as well as at new park facilities. Development of these sites would increase the amount of light and glare associated with development of urban uses, such as additional parking lots, building lights, and streetlights. While the types of lighting and their specific locations are not specified at this point, development proposed under this alternative would increase the amount of light into adjacent areas, including airport lands. The potential increase in light and glare is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than=significant level. Mitigation Measure LU-7.1: Incorporate Lighting Design Standards into Margarita and Airport Area Specific Plans The City shall incorporate lighting design standards into the Margarita and Airport Area Specific Plans. The standards shall contain specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area Specific measures shall include the use of shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5-foot candles at adjacent property lines. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In the Airport Area Specific Plan this impact is addressed in the Design Guidelines for lighting. Goal 5.20, which is implemented by guidelines and standards, is intended to accomplish "a low level of ambient lighting that protects the rural ambience, while being consistent with public safety needs." Hydrology and Water Quality The program EIR previously reported in error that a significant unavoidable impact would result from constructing a dam within a watercourse in Perfumo Canyon. However, the water reservoir to be constructed would be a tank for storage purposes only in an upland area, not an impoundment of water along a natural streamway. Therefore, no significant impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality are associated with the proposed project. Findings of Fact and Statement rj Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plane and1 O July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans l/ /��Z Atta.hment f Exhibit A Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Annual Grassland The Margarita and Airport Areas contain 119.48 hectares (295.24 acres) of annual grassland.. Implementation of this portion of the project would result in the loss or temporary disturbance of annual grassland. Annual grassland is common locally and regionally, therefore, the loss of annual grassland is typically considered less than significant. However-, large portions of the project area, including areas identified for facilities master plan improvements, have not been surveyed, and sensitive resources like seasonal wetlands and drainages, patches of valley needlegrass grassland, and populations of special-status species may be found interspersed in the annual grassland-., Therefore, this impact is considered significant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to aless- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1: Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. Applications for subdivisions and development in grassland areas must include the result of the following surveys and studies: ® surveys and mapping of special-status plants identified in Table 3C4 of the program EIR during the appropriate identification periods; • surveys and mapping of special-status wildlife identified in Table 3C-5 of the program EIR during the appropriate seasons; ■ mapping and quantification of valley needlegrass grassland inclusions; ® delineation and quantification of waters of the United States, including, wetlands, using the Corps' 1987 wetland delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987); ■ identification of special-status species and species of local concern as identified in the (forthcoming) Conservation Element; and ■ mapping and quantification of habitat loss. For areas of annual grassland that are determined to contain no special-status species, inclusions of valley needlegrass grassland, or seasonal wetland, no further mitigation is required. If sensitive resources are identified, please refer to the mitigation measures below to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts on these resources. This is not intended to limit other measures that the City may take regarding non-listed species. Findings.of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo jar the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans l l l�� Attachment f Exhibit A Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In the Airport Area Specific Plan significant grassland areas are designated as open space, following Figure 3-1, Open Space Resources. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed is areas that may include these resources. Impact BIO-2: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Valley Needlegrass Grassland Valley needlegrass grassland is found within annual grassland and ruderal areas of the Airport and Margarita Areas. Patches of valley needlegrass grassland have been identified on the Unocal property of the Airport Area. There may be additional patches within the annual grassland matrix of unsurveyed portions of the Airport and Margarita Areas and Facilities Master Plan service areas. Valley needlegrass grassland has suffered extensive losses statewide and is considered a sensitive natural community by DFG. The elimination or substantial degradation of this community is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Valley Needlegrass Grassland. After areas of valley needlegrass grassland are mapped and quantified (Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1), the following steps should be implemented in order of preference: ■ Avoid stands of valley needlegrass grassland whenever possible; this may be achieved by setting aside areas that contain significant stands of valley needlegrass grassland as ecological buffers or nature preserves. ■ Minimize impacts on valley needlegrass grassland in areas that cannot be avoided completely; this may be achieved by placing orange construction barrier fencing or stakes and flags around the perimeter of needlegrass grassland stands and by restricting the operation of heavy equipment and other construction-related activities to the outside of these exclusion zones. ■ Compensate for unavoidable losses of valley needlegrass grassland with replacement plantings at an alternative mitigation site. The project proponent should develop a mitigation and monitoring plan in coordination with DFG that specifies replacement ratios, success criteria, monitoring and reporting needs, and remediation measures. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Laic Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and12 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Attachment 1 Exhibit A Replacement plantings should be placed adjacent to existing preserved stands to encourage natural regeneration, ensure future preservation, and create enhanced habitat values. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In the Airport Area Specific Plan significant grassland areas are designated as open space, following Figure 3-1, Open Space Resources. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. Impact BIO-5: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Open-Water Habitat The Airport Area contains approximately 0.28 hectare (0.69 acre) of open-water habitat. There is open-water habitat on the Unocal property in the Airport Area and in limited areas in the Margarita Area and Facilities Master Plan areas. Open-water habitat may qualify as other waters of the United States subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clea_n Water Act. The potential loss of open-water habitat is considered signifccant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat. This mitigation measure is described below. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Chapter 3 of the Airport Area Specific Pian includes many policies regarding the protection of wetland resources, including a requirement for 50-foot setbacks (Program 3.3.3), and most significant areas are designated as open space. Impact BIO.6: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Freshwater Marsh The Airport Area contains approximately 6.78 hectares (16.76 acres) and the Margarita Area contains approximately 0.64 hectares (1:59 acres) of freshwater marsh. Freshwater marsh is considered a sensitive natural community by DFG and is also considered a wetland subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Extensive stands of freshwater marsh have been documented on the Unocal property. Additional stands also occur along drainage ditches throughout the project area, including the Facilities Master Plan areas, as well as in low-lying landscape positions throughout the area. Loss or temporary disturbance of freshwater marsh is considered a significant impact. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 13 Jul v 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans ki) 7 Attachment 1 Exhibit A Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure .BIO-1.1 Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat. To avoid and minimize impacts to freshwater marsh and other wetland habitats, the project proponent will do all of the following: ■ obtain a qualified wetland ecologist to conduct a delineation of waters of the United States; including wetlands, at the project site; ■ obtain verification of the delineation from the Corps; il avoid identified waters of the United States and wetlands during project design to the extent possible and establish a buffer zone around jurisdictional features to be preserved; 0 obtain a permit from the Corps for any unavoidable fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States; and ■ develop and implement a mitigation and monitoring plan in coordination with the agencies to compensate for losses and to ensure no net loss of wetland habitat functions and values. Finding: Mitigation Has Been. Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Chapter 3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan includes many policies regarding the protection of wetland resources, including a requirement for 50-foot setbacks (Program 3.3:3); and most significant areas are designated as open space. Impact BIO-7: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Seasonal Wetlands The Airport area contains approximately 20.12 hectares (49.72 acres) and the Margarita area contains 3.76 hectares (9.30 acres) of existing and potential seasonal wetlands. Seasonal wetlands have been documented throughout the Unocal property in the Airport area and are ' likely present throughout unsurveyed portions of the planning area, including the facilities master plan service areas. Seasonal wetlands are considered sensitive natural communities by DFG and qualify as wetlands subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. Impacts on seasonal wetlands are considered significant. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 14 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plato Attachment 1 Exhibit A Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BI0-6.1. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat. This mitigation measure is described above. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Chapter 3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan includes many policies regarding the protection of wetlaind resources, including a requirement for 50-foot setbacks (Program 3.3.3), and most significant areas are designated as open.space. Impact BIO-S: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Riparian Woodland and Scrub The Airport area contains approximately 8:39 hectares (20.72 acres) of riparian woodland and scrub. Riparian woodland and scrub are found on the Unocal property, along the East Branch of Acacia Creek, and in other localized occurrences along unmapped drainageditches or low-lying areas throughout the planning area and facilities master plan service areas. Additionally, the Margarita area contains 0.27 hectare (0.66 acre) of riparian woodland and .scrub. Riparian woodland and scrub are considered sensitive natural communities by DFG and are likewise protected by the City General Plan and proposed Specific Plans' policies. The riparian woodland and scrub may also qualify as wetlands subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. Impacts on riparian woodland and scrub are considered significant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-8.1. Avoid Temporary Disturbance to Riparian Woodland and Scrub by Complying with DFG and City General Plan Guidelines and Specific Plan requirements for Setbacks Regarding Riparian Corridors. The project proponent will do all of the following: ■ retain a qualified biologist to identify and map riparian woodland and.scrub in the project area; Findings of Fact and Statement of Overruling Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for.the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 15 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /,,W / jai a:hment i Exhibit A ■ establish a buffer zone around the edge of the riparian habitat at a distance to be determined in cooperation with DFG and the City by installing orange construction fencing or poles..amd flags; and ■ restrict construction activities to the outside of the fenced buffer zone. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. The Airport Area Specific Plan requires management programs when development is proposed along creeks (Program 3:3.1). 35-foot. creek setbacks are required for major creeks. A 50-wetland setback is established_, which wiU be implemented through subdivision and development approvals and the design of pubic facilities (Program 3:3.3): Impact BIO-9: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Agricultural Fields and Congdon's Tarplant The Airport area contains approximately 39.52 hectares (97.66 acres) and the Margarita area contains approximately 2.97 hectares (7.33 acres) of agricultural fields. Agricultural fields are locally and regionally common.. The loss or temporary disturbance of agricultural fields is generally considered less than significant from a biological standpoint. However, Congdon's Tarplant, a special-status plant species, has been observed in fallow agricultural fields in the planning area. Therefore, impacts on agricultural fields and Congdon's Tarplant are considered significant.. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BIO.9.1. Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species. To avoid or minimize impacts on special-status plant species, the project proponent will do all of the following: il Whenever possible, set aside as nature preserve areas known to support large populations of special-status plants. ■ Ensure that a qualified botanist conducts surveys for special-status plant species in all portions of the planning area at the appropriate time when the plants are clearly identifiable. The botanist should document and map encountered populations. ■ Avoid or minimize impacts on special-status plant populations to the extent possible. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 16 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /-3 Atta hment 1 Exhibit A ■ Compensate for the unavoidable loss or disturbance of special-status plant species. Compensation shall be implemented under a mitigation plan developed in conjunction with DFG and USFWS. The requirements for a mitigation plan will depend on the species affected by the project and the extent of impacts on the populations. Mitigation shall be implemented onsite whenever possible. Possible mitigation locations (but not required locations) for Congdon's Tarplant include those areas of the Unocal site set aside as Open Space. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on- site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. Impact BIO-11: Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species Several occurrences of special-status plant species have been reported in the Margarita and Airport areas and the facilities master plan service areas. Populations of rayless ragwort and San Luis Obispo mariposa lily occur in the South Hills, which are part of the Margarita area. These occurrences are located in areas to be designated as Open Space; therefore, no impact on these populations is expected. Many occurrences of Congdon's Tarplant have recently been documented in the Margarita and Airport areas. Although most populations occur in wetland conditions in a grassland matrix, several populations have also been documented in disturbed areas, including fallow fields. Impacts on special-status plant species are considered significant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BIO-9.1. Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on= site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied_ on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City rf Si,n Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and17 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans 1�3J A`ia—Jlf7 ent 1 Exhibit A Impact BIO-12: Impacts on Non-Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species Several occurrences of special-status species have been reported in the Margarita and Airport Areas. Many more special=status species have the potential for occurrence in these areas (Table 3C-5). Impacts on special-status wildlife species areconsidered significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is described above. Mitigation Measure BI0-12.1. Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Non-Listed, Special- Status Wildlife Species. To avoid or minimize impacts on non-listed; special-status wildlife species (Table 3C-5 of the program EIR), the project proponent will do all of the following: Ensure that a qualified biologist conducts surveys for non-listed special-status wildlife species in all portions of the planning area at the appropriate time for each species. The biologist should document and map encountered individuals. ■ Avoid or minimize impacts on non-listed special-status wildlife populations and individuals to the extent possible. a Ensure that a qualified biologist conducts protocol-level surveys for burrowing owls and; if presence is confirmed, develops a mitigation plan following DFG guidelines. ■ Surveys would be conducted at suitable breeding habitat for nesting tricolored blackbirds before construction begins. Surveys would be conducted 2-3 times during the nesting season (April 1-July 15). If nesting tricolored blackbirds are found, the project proponent shall avoid impacts on the species by one of two methods: avoiding construction within 500 feet of an active nesting colony during the nesting season or constructing the interceptor during the nonbreeding season (July 15-March 31). Barrier fencing would be used.to establish buffer zones around the active colonies. Removal of suitable breeding habitat should also be minimized through the project design. If nesting habitat is unoccupied, construction in the area could occur at any time; however, removal of suitable breeding habitat should be minimized. ■ Compensate for the unavoidable loss or disturbance of non-listed special-status wildlife species. Compensation shall be implemented under a mitigation plan developed in conjunction with DFG and USFWS. The requirements for a mitigation plan will depend on the species affected by the project and the extent of impacts on the populations. Mitigation shall be implemented onsite whenever possible. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted, Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on- site resources and the above survey requirements Will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 18 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans r3f� Attachment 1 Exhibit A Impact BIO-13: Potential Direct Mortality or Disturbance of California Red-Legged Frogs California red-legged frogs have been observed in the creeks in the San Luis Obispo area, including Acacia Creek, the perennial stream on the eastern and southern edge of the Tank Farm. Implementing construction activities or projects in the Airport area, including the facilities master plans could require removal of riparian or marsh vegetation or disturbance of stream habitat along the South Fork of Acacia Creek or ponds and marshes in the area. This could cause direct mortality of red-legged frogs or removal of their habitat. This potential impact on the California red-legged frog is considered significant because the Airport area, and to a lesser extent the Margarita area, are within the range of the species, suitable habitat is present, and the species has been recorded in the vicinity. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-13.1. Avoid Potential Direct Mortality and Loss of California Red-Legged Frogs. ® Prior to the initial site investigation and subsequent ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist will instruct all project personnel in worker awareness training, including recognition of California red-legged frogs and their habitat. ■ A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within the project area no earlier than 2 days before ground-disturbing activities. ■ No activities shall occur after October 15 or the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first, until May 1 except for during periods greater than 72 hours without precipitation. Activities can only resume after site inspection by a qualified biologist. The rainy season is defined as: a frontal system that results in depositing 0.25 inches or more of precipitation in one event. ® Vehicles to and from the project site will be confined to existing roadways to minimize disturbance of habitat. ■ Prior to movement of a backhoe in the project area, a qualified biologist will make sure the route is clear of California red-legged frogs. ® If a California red legged frog is encountered during excavations, or any project activities, activities will cease until the frog is removed and relocated by an USFWS- approved biologist. Any incidental take will be reported to the USFWS immediately by telephone at (916)414-6600. Findings of Facr and StaiemenI of Overriding.Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 19 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans l X33 Atta-hment 1 Exhibit A ■ If suitable wetland habitat is disturbed or removed, the project proponent will restore the suitable habitat back to its original value by covering bare areas with mulch and revegetating all cleared areas with wetland species that are currently found in the project area. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on- site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. impact BIO-14: Potential Direct Mortality of or Indirect Impacts on Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and California Tiger Salamanders Implementing the specific plans could result in the loss of, or disturbance to, vernal pool fairy shrimp and California tiger salamanders (if they occur in the planning area) if there are vernal pools or other suitable seasonal wetlands within 250 feet of project activities. Direct or indirect impacts on vernal pool fairy shrimp and tiger salamanders are considered significant because the species are listed under the federal ESA and. a candidate for federal listing, respectively. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-14.1. Compensate for Direct and Indirect Impacts on Vernal Pool and Seasonal Wetland Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and California Tiger Salamander Habitat. If vernal pool fairy shrimp or tiger salamander habitat is present and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will compensate for direct and indirect effects on the habitat. The project proponent will conduct an onsite visit with USFWS and DFG to determine whether potential vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the Airport and Margarita areas are suitable fairy shrimp and tiger salamander habitat. If there is no suitable fairy shrimp and tiger salamander habitat, no additional mitigation is needed. If there is suitable habitat, the project proponent can assume that it is occupied and mitigate the loss of habitat, or can retain a qualified biologist to conduct USFWS protocol-level surveys and determine presence or absence. These surveys typically require two seasons of surveys during the winter-wet season; therefore, most project proponents assume presence and mitigate the loss of fairy shrimp and tiger salamander habitat. This compensation will be achieved by implementing the following measures, as described.in the programmatic agreement between USFWS and the Corps: o Create suitable fairy shrimp habitat (i.e., vernal pools or other suitable seasonal wetlands) at a 1:1 ratio or other ratio approved by the USFWS. The habitat must be created at a location approved by USFWS. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 20 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Atta.hment 1 `Exhibit A ■ Preserve suitable fairy shrimp habitat at a 2:1 ratio or other ratio approved by the USFWS. The habitat must be preserved at a location approved by USFWS. • Before construction starts, the project proponent will obtain authorization from USFWS to take listed fairy shrimp species that would be affected by the project. A biological opinion under the federal ESA may be needed from USFWS before construction begins. This is not intended to limit mitigation should USFWS and the Corps require a different approach. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project.. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on- site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. Impact BIO-16: Potential Disturbance of Least Bell's Vireos The least Bell's vireo may breed in dense riparian vegetation in the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plan areas, including the facilities master plan areas. This bird is a rare breeding species in San Luis Obispo County. Because the least Bell's vireo habitat may be reduced,this impact is considered significant. Mitigation Mitigation. Measure BIO-16.1. Conduct Protocol-Level Surveys for Least Bell's Vireo. If the species or appropriate habitat is present, then the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-16.2. Mitigation Measure BIO-16.2. Avoid Potential Direct Mortality and Loss of Least Bell's Vireo. The project proponent will consult with USFWS and DFG and possibly conduct a site visit with these agencies to develop measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts on this species along the stream in the Airport and Margarita areas. If potential impacts on least Bell's vireos can be avoided; no additional mitigation is needed. If potential impacts on the least Bell's vireo cannot be avoided, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-16.3. Mitigation Measure BIO-16.3. Develop and Implement a Least Bell's Vireo Mitigation Plan. If potential impacts on the least Bell's vireo cannot be avoided along the creeks in the Airport area in the planning area, the project proponent will prepare and implement a mitigation plan and obtain the appropriate federal ESA permits, if necessary. The project proponent will consult with USFWS and DFG to determine whether additional mitigation is needed, and USFWS will assist the project proponent in determining whether incidental take authorization under the federal ESA is needed. The plan will need to include measures that would avoid and minimize impacts on the least Bell's vireo and additional habitat creation, enhancement, and management in the planning area. Findings of Fact and Statemenrof Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and21 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Attachment 1 Exhibit A Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the. Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19.requires protection for on- site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on. a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. Impact BIO-17: Potential Direct Mortality of or Indirect Impacts on Southwestern Pond Turtle The southwestem pond turtle is known to occur in the tributaries of San Luis Obispo Creek, and it has been observed in riparian vegetation on the Tank Farm site (Entrix 1996). Pond turtles could occur in ponds in the Airport area; they could also nest in the grasslands there, especially at the Tank Farm. Implementing construction activities or projects in the Airport area could require removal or disturbance of riparian habitats, ponds, or grasslands; but a substantial amount of habitat would not be disturbed. This could cause short-term impacts on pond turtles in the Airport area. Depending on the year and the season, eliminating the reach of Orcutt Creek, modifying Acacia Creek (including mitigation enhancements for loss at Orcutt Creek), and developing the sports fields and Prado Road extension could have adverse impacts on pond turtles. Therefore, these potential impacts on the southwestern pond turtle are considered significant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-17.1. Avoid Potential Direct Mortality and Loss of Southwestern Pond Turtle. The project proponent will consult with USFWS and DFG and possibly conduct a site visit with these agencies to develop measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts on this species along the stream and wetlands (including ponds) in the Airport and Margarita areas. If potential impacts on the southwestern pond turtle can be avoided, no additional mitigation is needed. If potential impacts on the southwestern pond turtle cannot be avoided, the project. proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-17.2. Mitigation Measure BIO-17.2. Develop and Implement a Southwestern Pond Turtle Mitigation Plan. If potential impacts on the southwestern pond.turtle cannot be avoided along the creeks in the Airport area and marsh and other wetlands in the planning area, the project proponent will prepare and implement a mitigation plan and obtain the appropriate federal ESA permits., if necessary. The project proponent will consult with USFWS and.DFG to determine whether additional mitigation is needed, and USFWS and the Corps will assist the project proponent in determining whether incidental take authorization under the federal ESA is needed. The plan will need to include measures that would avoid and minimize impacts on the southwestern pond turtle and additional habitat creation, enhancement, and management in the planning area. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 22 Jul v 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /r✓[Y Attachment 1 Exhibit A Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that may include these resources. Traffic and Circulation Impact T-1; Secondary Impacts of Road Improvements The improvements necessary to achieve vehicular flow at the intersections listed above could cause secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists. To avoid significant pedestrian and bicycle impacts, development projects in the Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas shall include pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the design of the intersection and roadway improvements. Pedestrian facilities shall include sidewalks along both sides of all newly constructed streets and reconstructed streets, crosswalks at new intersections and reconstructed intersections, and pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections. Bicycle facilities shall include Class II bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Specific Plans. Bike lanes shall be included in the widening and extension of the following streets. ■ South Higuera Street (Tank Farm to Buckley) ■ Broad Street (Buckley to Tank Farm Road) ® Prado Road (Broad Street to US 101 interchange) ■ Santa Fe Road (Buckley to Prado road extension) The road improvements in the Margarita and Airport Area Specific Plans will result in substantial widening of roadways and intersection approaches to accommodate vehicle traffic and maintain LOS D or better. Widening of streets and intersections can result in secondary significant impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing crossing distance and introducing conflicts at intersections with multiple turning lanes unless designed properly. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less=than= significant level. Mitigation Measure T-1.1: Implement Design Features. The following design features should be implemented; ■ On approaches to intersections where exclusive right-tum lanes are recommended and Class II bikeways are proposed, the design of the intersection shall provide bike lanes (1.2 meters in width) for through travel along the left edge of the right-turn lane. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 23 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans 1-37 Attachment 1 'Exh-ibit A ■ At intersection approaches where pedestrian crossing distance exceeds six travel lanes (22 meters), the intersection design shall include an Americans with Disabilities. Act (ADA) compliant median refuge island (raised concrete) with pushbutton to activate the pedestrian signal. The minimum width of the median refuge shall be 1.2 meters if integral with a raised median along the entire length of the street, or 1.8 meters wide by 6 meters long if ail isolated median refuge. Exceptions for this measure include locations where existing right-of-way constraints make it infeasible to widen the street for the refuge. ■ All signalized intersections shall be designed with pedestrian signal heads and pushbutton activation. il Intersections with exclusive right-turn lanes shall be designed to reduce the speed of right-turning vehicles and reduce the pedestrian crossing distance. The curb return radius should be 15 meters or less. Raised pedestrian refuges (porkchop islands) may be installed between exclusive right-tum lanes and through lanes on streets with crossings that exceed 22 meters, but the approach angle of the right turn shall be designed to minimize turning speed. Mitigation Measure T-1.2: Install New Signalized Intersection for Aero Drive and Broad Street. To mitigate significant effects on this intersection, a new signalized intersection shall be installed on Broad Street south of Aero Drive, as identified in the Airport Master Plan. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has, been adopted through the standards in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan. Impact T-2: LOS is Excess of LOS D The Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection would operate at LOS E. The Tank Farm Road/Broad Street intersection and the Los Osos Valley ROadfUS 101 northbound ramps would operate at LOS F. Mitigation The following mitigation measures could have a positive effect on future operations at the impacted intersections, but do not change the conclusion in the Final Program Environmental. Therefore, impacts to the intersections are still considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure T-2.1: The threshold for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers with 25 or more employees. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 24 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans mmshment 1 Exhibit A Mitigation Measure T-2.2: As development occurs, require projects to improve adjacent streets to include bus stop locations, including turnouts, transit pads, shelters and other amenities to serve public transportation. Finding: Mitigation Has Been.Incorporated into the Project. The above mitigation measures have been incorporated into Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan as new standards. Air Quality Impact AIR-1: Short-Term Construction Emissions Buildout under the proposed project would involve the grading and construction of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational structures throughout the project in the Airport Area, Margarita Area, and facilities master plan service areas. All phases of site preparation and building construction would produce construction emissions. The most emissions would be generated during the initial phases of site preparation when large areas of soil would be disturbed and many large construction.vehicles would be in operation. Emissions occurring during this phase would consist primarily of particulates generated by soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated by construction vehicles. The rate of particulate generation is dependent upon soil moisture and silt content, wind speed, and relative activity level. The combustion emissions generated by construction vehicles and equipment may degrade local air quality and cause exceedances of the state nitrogen dioxide standard. In addition, emissions of ozone precursors (NO,, and ROG) would exacerbate existing high ozone levels in the County. The magnitude of combustion emissions is highly variable among construction sites because of the variability in the number of construction vehicles operating simultaneously. While the total acreage to be developed under buildout of the proposed project could be estimated, the phasing of individual development projects is not known. Consequently, the impact of construction emissions on regional or local air quality cannot be quantified with any accuracy. The construction emissions of each specific development project must be evaluated individually and cumulatively to determine the magnitude of impacts to regional and local air quality. This impact is considered significant Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-1.1. Implement Construction-Related Combustion Emissions Mitigation. NO,, emissions will be the controlling factor in determining the application of control strategies for construction-related, combustion-related emissions. Any project requiring grading of>1,950 cubic yards/day or >50,000 cubic yards within a 3-month period will need to apply Best Available Control Technology for construction equipment combustion controls. Projects requiring >125,000 cubic yards of grading in a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Sun Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific.Plans and25. July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans l�3 9 Attachment 1 7 Exhibit A 3-month period will need to apply CBACT plus offsets and/or other mitigation. Examples of CBACT can be found in the San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook If impacts are still significant after application of CBACT, the following additional measures shall be implemented as necessary: ■ use Caterpillar pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent), properly maintained and operated to reduce emissions of NO,,; ■ use electrically powered equipment where feasible; ® maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications, except as otherwise required above; • install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment; zi substitute gasoline-powered equipment for diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; • implement activity management techniques as described below; and ® use compressed natural gas or propane-powered portable equipment (e.g., compressors, generators, etc.) onsite instead of diesel=powered equipment, where feasible. Mitigation Measure AIR-1.2. Implement Construction-Related Fugitive Dust (PM10) Mitigation Any project with a grading area greater than 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres) of continuously worked area will exceed the.2.5 ton PM I O quarterly threshold and will require the following mitigation measures where applicable. Proper implementation of these measures shall be assumed to achieve a 50% reduction in fugitive dust emissions.. The use of soil binders on completed cut-and-fill areas has the potential to reduce fugitive dust emissions by 80%. ■ Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. ■ Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site; increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour(mph); reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. ® Spray all dirt stockpile areas daily as needed. Implement permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans as soon as possible following completion of any soil-disturbing activities. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 26 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans -L/0 Attachment 1 Exhibit A ■ Sow exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates. occurring 1 month after initial grading with a quickly germinating native grass seed and water until vegetation is established. ■ Stabilize all disturbed soil areas that are not subject to revegetation using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. ■ Complete paving of all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. that are to be paved as soon as possible; lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ■ Limit vehicle speeds for all construction vehicles to a maximum of 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 2.3114; this measure has the potential to reduce PM 10 emissions by 7-14%. ■ Install "wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; this measure has the potential to reduce PM 10 emissions by 40-70%. ■ Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads; water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible; this measure has the potential to reduce PM 10 emissions by 25-60%. All PM 10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of the structure. Mitigation Measure AIR=1.3. Implement Construction-Related Activity Management Techniques ■ Develop a comprehensive construction activity management plan designed to minimize the amount of large construction equipment operating during any given time period. ■ Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans.and27. July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Ana.-nment 1 Exhibit A ■ Limit the length of the construction work-day period, if necessary. ■ Phase construction activities, if appropriate: Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation is feasible and has been adopted. The above mitigation measures will be implemented through project specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval depending on the size of the project and per the recommendations of the Air Pollution Control District. Impact AIR-2: Long-Term Operation Emissions Long-term air quality impacts would result primarily from ongoing emissions generated by the operation of motor vehicles and by natural gas combustion and electricity consumption. The land uses proposed in the project would generate new vehicle trips in the air basin. Vehicle emissions were estimated using the ARB's URBEMIS7G model. The increase in vehicle emissions associated with buildout of the project for each land use is presented in Table 3E-4-in the program EIR under transportation emissions. Development of the land uses in the project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas for space and water heating. Electricity consumption would generate emissions from fuel combustion at powerplants. Natural gas combustion would also generate emissions directly. Emissions were estimated using URBEMIS7G and are listed in Table 3E-4 of the program EIR under area sources. Consistency with the District's CAP. As indicated in the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a consistency analysis is .required in the environmental review for projects that involve a proposed project. The consistency analysis.must evaluate the following questions: 1. Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the most recent CAP for the same area? 2. Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and.miles traveled less than or equal to the rate of population growth for the same area? 3. Have all applicable land use and transportation control measures from the CAP been included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible? Provided that the answer to all three of these questions is yes, the project is to be considered consistent with the CAP. If the answer to any one of the questions is no, then the emissions reductions projected in the CAP may not be achieved, which could delay or preclude attainment of the state ozone standard. This would be considered inconsistent with the CAP. The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project based on the questions presented above. 1. Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the most recent CAP for the same area? Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airjoort Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 28 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans / / r7 Attalhment 1 Exhibit A The CAP includes population figures for incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County for 1990, as well as population projections up to year 2010. The CAP projects that the population of the San Luis;Obispo area will be 49,228 in the year 2010. The proposed project uses the population projections in the San Luis Obispo General Plan and, according to the most recent plan, the population projection for the year 2010 is also 49,228. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the population projections in the CAP. 2. Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the rate of population growth for the same area? Due mainly to the additional employment generated in the area (more than anticipated by the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements update), VMT is expected to increase faster than population in the area. Over the anticipated buildout period for the area, a gradual shift to vehicles with lower emissions is expected to at least partially offset air quality impacts of increased VMT. However, rapid commercial and industrial development in the early years could exceed this compensating reduction. 3. Have all applicable land use and transportation control measures from the CAP been included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible? Under the San Luis Obispo Area Plan, thegoals for land use were to plan compact communities, provide for mixed land use, and balance jobs and housing. The proposed project incorporated these goals from the Area Plan, which was also identified in the CAP aim to reduce the number of VMT by local residents. For example, the Margarita Area Specific Plan would allow the development of a wide variety of land uses including Residential, Park, Neighborhood Commercial, Business Parks, and Elementary School. These land uses would provide residents with convenient access to employment, basic shopping, recreation, and education through both the locations of land uses and the design of circulation features. Based on these considerations, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP and is not expected to further delay the attainment of state and federal air quality standards within the County. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Mitigation Measure AIR-2.1. Implement Growth-Phasing Schedule. The City will implement a growth-phasing schedule for the Airport area, to assure that nonresidential development in the urban area does not exceed the pace of residential development. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 1.4 of the Land Use Element says that the gap between housing supply and demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) should not increase. The City Council reviews both residential and commercial development growth rates as part of the Annual Report on the General Plan. Policy 1.11.4 of the Land Use Element says that each year the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 29 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans l- y.3 Atta:hment 1 - Exhibit A floor area and shall consider establishing limits if the rate for any five year period exceeds five percent. If this General Plan policy is implemented through a new ordinance, then commercial floor area can be allocated, or phased, in the Airport Area, similar to the way residential dwellings are allocated to expansion areas such as the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area. Noise No significant impacts associated with Noise were identified in the program EIR for the proposed project. Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Potential Construction-Related Exposure to Hazardous Materials Construction-related activities associated with specific projects in the Airport and Margarita Areas and development of roadway/utility infrastructure associated with the facility master plans would involve the use of materials that could contaminate nearby soils and water resources in the project area (e.g., petroleum-based fuels and oils, solvents, cement). Additionally, construction workers and other people could be exposed to dust or emissions containing these materials. Construction workers could also be exposed to organic pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials during groundbreaking activities. Groundwater may also occur near the surface along buried infrastructure alignments. Trenches or tunnels may encounter groundwater, which may require dewatering for pipe placement. Contaminated water encountered during construction-related activities may also require special handling and disposal procedures. While known and potential hazardous materials/waste sites have been identified in the Airport area, the potential also exists to expose construction workers to previously undiscovered hazardous materials/waste sites during development of the Margarita area Because construction_related activities could substantially increase the use of hazardous materials and increase the risk of exposure to hazardous materials in the project area, this impact is considered significant. Mitigation. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. Implement a Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Before beginning construction activities, a project proponent will submit a hazardous materials management plan for construction activities that involve hazardous materials. The plan will discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a.specific protocol to identify health risks associated Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -City of San Luis Obispo for the.Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and30 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans / 77 Attachment 1 Exhibit A With the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2. Conduct Phase I and Possibly Phase H Environmental Site Assessments to Determine Soil or Groundwater Contamination. The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g., streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments; a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. ■ Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a workplan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted, and approved. s Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB before activities. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation is feasible and has been adopted. Areas within the AASP identified as being the most contaminated are designated as open space. This mitigation measure is also implemented through development review requirements and compliance with Fire Department and RWQCB requirements. Impact HAZ-2: Potential Operations-Related Exposure to Hazardous Materials Implementation of the proposed project would include the development of manufacturing and business park land uses in the Airport Area and the development of business park land uses in the Margarita Area. Operations at the sites could involve the delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business park activities. Operations-related activities within both the Airport and Margarita Areas could substantially increase the use of hazardous materials and increase the risk of exposure to hazardous materials in the project area. Development of the specific roadway and utility infrastructure improvements outlined in the facility master plans would not generate a substantial amount of operations- related hazardous materials. Because operations-related activities could substantially increase Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the.Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 31 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans At#a�hment 1 Exhibit A the use of hazardous materials and increase the risk of exposure to hazardous materials in the project area, this impact is considered significant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1. Implement an Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan. The project proponent will ensure that a hazardous materials management plan for operations-related.activities is established and addresses the delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of various chemicals. The plan will identify the proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. In addition, the SLOFD will conduct routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes: Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Areas within the AASP identified as being the most contaminated are designated as open space. This mitigation measure is also implemented through development review requirements and compliance with Fire Department and RWQCB requirements. Impact HAZ-3: Short-Term Surface Water Quality Degradation from Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials during Construction-Related Activities Construction-related activities associated with specific projects in the Airport and Margarita Areas and development of roadway/utility infrastructure associated with the facility master plans would require the installation of much buried infrastructure to support development. The proposed buried infrastructure may cross several drainages, and construction-related activities would involve the use of hazardous materials (e.g., oils, grease, lubricants) that could accidentally be released into local waterways. Water quality impacts would largely be determined by the duration and seasonality of construction-related activities. Specific areas of concern in the Airport area include San Luis Obispo Creek, Orcutt Creek, and Davenport Creek. Areas of concern in the Margarita Area include Acacia Creek. Although construction-related activities occurring during the dry season would have less potential to flush hazardous materials into a stream or drainage, low summer flows are less able to dilute hazardous materials entering the water column. Because construction-related activities would substantially increase the use of hazardous materials and increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into project-area drainages, this impact is considered significant. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - City of San Zeis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 32 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans. / �w r uata nment 1 Exhibit A Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. Implement a Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan. This mitigation measure is described above. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Areas within the AASP identified as being the most contaminated are designated as open space. This mitigation measure is also implemented through development review requirements and compliance with Fire Department and RWQCB requirements. Public Services and Utilities Impact PS=1: Impacts on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities The project includes portions of the land use plan from E_IR Alternative 3. Additional demand for water supply under Alternative 3 is similar to demand under the proposed project. However, the project would result in additional demand east of the airport and south of the URL. This area .is currently not planned for development within the City General Plan or facility master plans. This area is not planned to be provided with adequate distribution facilities to serve potential development. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact exists in the area of water distribution facilities. Impact PS-2; Impacts on Sewer Mains and Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment Facilities Additional demand for water reclamation facility capacity is similar to demand under the proposed project. However, the project would result in additional demand east of the airport and south of the URL. This area is currently not planned for development within the City General Plan or the Wastewater Master Plan Update. As a.result, the impacts in the area of wastewater collection are considered significant and unavoidable. Impact PS-3: Impacts on Storm Drain Capacity The proposed project would result in additional stormwater generation east of the airport and south of the URL. This area is currently not planned for development within the City General Plan or the Storm Drain Master Plan. As a result, impacts in the area of stormwater collection facilities are considered significant and unavoidable. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 33 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Atta,hment 1 - Exhibit A Mitigation The following mitigation measures address impacts PS-1 through PS-3. All impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, because the area being served includes land.outside of the current URL, General Plan and service plans. However, a development review procedure is in place to insure that issues are identified are resolved prior to project approvals. Mitigation Measures PS-1.1 and PS-1.2 require future site-specific studies before the review and approval of projects in the area east of the airport and south of the URL to determine specific water, wastewaters and storm drainage system capabilities to serve the projects proposed. Because the ability to mitigate these impacts cannot be projected pending the project specific engineering study, these impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure PS-1.1. Submit Engineering Feasibility Study. Before specific project review and approval of project in the area east of the airport and south of the URL the project proponent will submit a detailed engineering assessment of the specific project's water demand and sewer/wastewater, and storm drainage production, and an assessment of the City's infrastructure system to handle the project in question. The project proponent will be required to provide mitigation to offset impacts on the water, wastewater, and/or storm drainage system as determined by the City. Mitigation Measure PS-1.2. Require Developments Expanding Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Infrastructure to Pay for Improvements: The City will require that new large-scale developments in the area east of the airport and south of the URL include a funding mechanism for the installation and maintenance of water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure and service to the area. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. This mitigation measure is implemented through policies in Chapter 7 (Utilities) that require performance of the requirements above. Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Potential Damage to or Destruction of Known and/or Unknown Cultural Resources Different types of cultural resources throughout the planning areas could be affected by activities proposed within the Airport and Margarita.Areas and the related facility master plan areas.. For example, archaeological sites are susceptible to damage during excavation. Generally, the scientific value of archaeological sites is in the information that can be extracted about past lifestyles. Any activity that moves, removes, or destroys aspects of a site will compromise that information. The historic built environment and historic landscape are also Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ciro of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 34 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Atta,hment 1 Exhibit A quite susceptible to impacts associated with activities proposedunder the specific plans. For example, any activity that destroys or alters the physical makeup of structures or the:setting in which they exist, including, but not limited to, the construction of new structures, will compromise the integrity of these resources. Previous cultural resource field surveys have identified a wooden barn in the Airport Area and a cluster of four stone mortars in the Margarita Area. Although individual projects have:not been proposed, resources associated with these findings may be adversely affected by individual projects. Impacts on these cultural resources could result from ground disturbance associated with infrastructure development and construction of new structures, roads, and underground utilities. Implementation of the proposed project would entail reuse of the area for residential, service and manufacturing, commercial, office, public, open space, recreational, infrastructure, and underground utilities. Ground disturbance associated with infrastructure development and construction of new structures, access roads, and underground utilities could have an impact on known or unknown cultural resources; therefore, this impact is considered significant. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level, Mitigation Measure CR-1.1. Protect Known and/or Unknown Cultural Resources. The City will ensure that the project proponent implements the following measures before and during development of specific projects proposed under the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and the related facility master plans. Specific measures include the following: ■ Conduct Surveys of Unsurveyed Areas. Before implementing project activities, pedestrian surveys will be conducted to locate and record cultural resources. ■ Evaluate Resources within the Project Areas. Resources in the planning areas that cannot be avoided will be evaluated. Additional research and test excavations, where appropriate, will be undertaken to determine whether the resource(s) meets CEQA or NRHP significance criteria. Impacts on significant resources that cannot be avoided will be mitigated in consultation with the lead agency for the project. Possible mitigation measures include: - a data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from archaeological sites; - development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites; Findings of Fact and Statement of Orerriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and35 /J I///^/,/�'July 1005 Related Facilities Master Plans Atta-hment 1 - Exhibit A - preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of Interior Standard's for Treatment of Historic Properties; - construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region; and treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes., If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a Memorandum of Agreement, the inventory; evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Implementation of the mitigation measure will occur as part of thedevelopment review process, guided by the policies and objectives of the City's Historical Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Cumulative Impacts Because of the program-level nature of the project, cumulative impacts are considered in each of the sections of Chapter.3 of the program EIR (and the project's significant impacts are discussed above for each resource topic listed). The project directly implements policies and plans adopted by the City, including the City General Plan. This EIR analysis uses the projection approach to cumulative impact analysis, supplemented by the policies contained in the proposed Airport Area Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan. The projection approach to cumulative impact analysis involves considering. the project effects in light of the effects summarized in an adopted general plan or related planning document that is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[b][1][B].) The analysis is based on the assumption that the cumulative impacts analysis of the general plan EIR provides an appropriate and adequate base for analysis of future development and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. In certain instances, the Airport Area Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan propose changes to what is currently identified in the adopted general plan. Where there are conflicts between the adopted general plan and the proposed specific plans, policies are proposed in the form of mitigation to reduce cumulative impacts. Finding:, Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. Except for the impacts listed below, the City finds that the mitigation measures proposed above are feasible and have been adopted to reduce the cumulative impacts. This document will become a working part of the development review process to insure implementation of the required mitigation measures. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 36 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /7370 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Finding: No Feasible Mitigation is Available. The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available for the following cumulative impacts and that these cumulative impacts are significant and unavoidable: ■ Impact LU-l: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies and Agreements ■ Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses Impact LU-6: Change in Views ■ Impact T72: LOS in Excess of LOS D ■ Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity_ , and Expansion of Treatment Facilities, and Storm Drain Capacity. a Growth Inducement: The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth- inducing impact. A statement of overriding consideration for these impacts is made in Section 6. Growth Inducement Impact: Increased Growth and Additional Secondary Growth-Related Impacts The project will result in the potential future development of the Airport and Margarita areas for residential, commercial, industrial, park, and open space uses. This includes the use of approximately 357.9 hectares (884.4 acres) for urban uses, including development of approximately 868 residential units for approximately 2,015 people. However, the project directly implements policies and plans adopted by the City, including the City General Plan, The proposed project; including the land use portion of Alternative 3, includes development beyond the existing Urban Reserve Line. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Implementation of the adopted policies in the City's general plan and mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR (aimed at reducing the secondary effects of growth), combined with. implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3 of the program EIR and the policies contained in the AirportArea Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan will reduce the secondary effects of growth associated with the proposed adoption of these specific plans and related facilities master plans. However, these impacts would not be reduced to less- than-significant levels. The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact. Short of denying the project, there is no.feasible mitigation. Finding: No Feasible Mitigation is Available. The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available and that this impact is significant and unavoidable:. A statement of overriding consideration for this impact is made in Section 6. Findings of Fact and Stanment of Overriding Cauiderations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and37 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans �«a.,i utiefli 1 Exhibit.A SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Introduction As identified in Section 4 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur: • Impact LU-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies and Agreements ■ Impact LU-5`. Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses ■ Impact LU-6: Change in Views Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D ■ Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment.Facilities, and Storm Drain Capacity. ■ Growth Inducement: The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth- inducing impact. Because the proposed project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental effects. As such, the environmentally superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is considered in this section. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. Description of the Alternatives The program EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project. Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the southerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan is moved northerly. The airport is excluded from the Plan area. Additionally, land to the south and west of the airport is excluded from the plan area. The total Airport Plan area is reduced by 140.3 hectares (346.6 acres). In addition to changes in the plan area boundary, the distribution of land uses within the plan area is modified as shown in Table 5-1 and Figure 2-4 of the program EIR and outlined below. The boundaries of the Margarita Area Specific Plan remain largely unchanged. However, the land uses within the plan area are modified as shown in Table 5-2 of the program EIR and shown below: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Speciftc Plans and 3 g July 2005 Related Facilities.Master Plans Attachment 1 Exhibit A ■ designation of the Airport Area for 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) of Medium-Density Residential, 136.1 hectares (336.4 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 20.8 hectares (51.4 acres) of Business Park, and 103.8 hectares (256.6 acres) of Recreation and Open Space for a total Airport Area of 263.8 hectares (652.0) acres; ■ designation of the Margarita Area for 71.1 hectares (175.6 acres) of Open Space, 10.9 hectares(26.9 acres) of parks, 40.4 hectares (99.8 acres) of Residential, 0.60 hectare (1.5 acres) of Neighborhood Commercial, 0.40 hectare (L.0 acre) of Special Use, 17.6 hectares (43.2 acres) of Business Park, and 27.7 hectares (68.4 acres) of Streets for a total Margarita Area of 168.6 hectares (4.16.4 acres); ® extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road; ® extension of Prado Road to Broad Street; construction of a roadway connection between Los Osos Valley Road and Prado Road; and ® extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2 the southerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan is moved slightly south at the Airport to correspond to County Land Use designation boundaries. The airport is excluded from the Plan area. The total Airport Plan area is reduced by 39.0 hectares (96.3 acres). In addition to changes in the plan area boundary, the distribution of land uses within the plan area is modified as shown in Table 5-3 and Figure 2-5 of the program EIR and summarized below. No change is made to the land uses or boundaries of the Margarita Area Specific Plan. ■ designation of the Airport Area for 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) of Medium-Density Residential, 204.0 hectares (504,2 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 29:3 hectares (72.4 acres) of Business Park, 120.3 hectares (297.3 acres) of Recreation and Open Space, and 8.4 hectares (20.8 acres) for Agriculture and Open Space for a total Airport Area of 365.1 hectares (902.3 acres); ® designation of the Margarita Area for 68.4 hectares (169.0 acres) of Open Space, 22.6 hectares (55.7 acres) of parks, 30:3 hectares (74.9 acres) of Residential, 0.9 hectare. (2.1 acres) of Neighborhood Commercial, 0.40 hectare (1.0 acre) of Special Use, 27.9 hectares (68.8 acres) of Business Park, and 19 hectares (47 acres) of Streets for a total Margarita Area of 169.4 hectares (418.5 acres); ■ extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road; • extension of Prado Road (in the Margarita area) to Broad Street; Findings of Fact and Sratemenr of Overriding.Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 39 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans 1-53 A,tia.hmant 1 Exhibit A ■ extension of Prado Road to Tank Farm Road; and ■ extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, the southerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan is moved south along the length of the southerly boundary to correspond to County Land Use designation boundaries. The airport is excluded from the Plan area. The total Airport Plan area is increased by 70.5 hectares (174.1 acres). In addition to changes in the plan area boundary, the distribution of land uses within the plan area is modified as shown in Table 54 and Figure 2-6 of the program EIR and summarized below. No change is made to the land uses or boundaries of the Margarita Area Specific Plan. ® designation of the Airport Area for 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) of Medium=Density Residential, 140.5 hectares (347.2 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 132.0 hectares (326.1 acres) of Business Park, 117.6 hectares (290.6 acres) of Recreation and Open Space, and 81.4 hectares (201.2 acres) for Agriculture and Open Space for a total Airport Area of 474.6 hectares (1,172.7 acres); • designation of the Margarita Area for 68.4 hectares (169.0 acres) of Open Space, 22.6 hectares (55.7 he of parks, 30.3 hectares (74.9 acres) of Residential, 0.9 hectare (2.1 acres) of Neighborhood Commercial, 0.40 hectare (1.0 acre) of Special Use, 27.9 hectares (68.8 acres)of Business Park, and 19 hectares (47 acres) of Streets for a total Margarita Area of 169.4 hectares (418.5 acres); ® extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road; ® extension of Prado Road (in the Margarita area) to Broad Street; ■ construction of a roadway connection between Los Osos Valley Road and Prado Road; ® extension of Los Osos Valley Road from South Higuera Street to Broad Street; and ■ extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. Alternative 4: No-Project As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the environmental consequences of not proceeding with the project. Under this alternative, no specific plans or facility plans are adopted for the Airport and Margarita Areas. The City General Plan would not allow urban development within the Airport and Margarita Areas until adoption of specific plans.. As such, no further subdivision or urban development would be expected within the specific plan areas. The No-Project Alternative would not accomplish the City's fundamental goal of implementing Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considertirions City of San lais Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 40 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Exhibit A the General Plan. The City evaluated the concept of not developing the Airport and Margarita Areas for urban uses during the General Plan and General Plan EIR processes and consideration of no further development is considered to be adequately addressed within these documents. Effectiveness of Alternatives in Avoiding Project Impacts This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. Impact LU-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies and Agreements The proposed project, which includes portions of the land use plan identified in Alternative 3, is inconsistent with the City's General Plan because it involves an expansion of the Urban Reserve Line (URL). Expansion of the URL is considered a growth inducing impact and also applies to Alternative 2 and 3. Alternative 1 and the No-Project Alternative do not involve an expansion of the existing URL and would reduce.impact LU-1 to a less than significant level, but Alternative 1 would not be consistent with the County General Plan and would create an inconsistency between City and County plans. The No-Project Alternative would be inconsistent with the City General Plan, which says that the City should prepare a Specific Plan and annex the Airport Area.. Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses Although Alternative 1 would result in fewer total acres of land converted, none of the reduced acreage is prime farmland. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 1. Alternative 3 has the same impacts as the project in this case. Alternatives 2 and the No-Project Alternative would avoid the conversion of prime farmland. Therefore, under Alternatives 2 and 4, the significant unavoidable impact of conversion of prime farmland could be avoided. However, Alternatives 2 and 4 are not consistent with the City's greenbelt objectives and create an inconsistency between City and County plans. Impact LU-6: Change in Views Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in the same significant unavoidable changes in views from a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape in the Airport and Margarita areas as the proposed project; development would still occur under these alternatives as under the project. Under the No-Project Alternative, the General Plan would not allow urban development within the Airport and Margarita Areas until adoption of specific plans. As such, no further subdivision or urban development would be expected within the specific plan areas. Implementation of this alternative would, therefore, eliminate this significant unavoidable impact. However,Alternative 4 would not comply with City or County general plans. Findings of Fact and Sratement of Overriding Considerations Ciry of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 41 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans ru;a..iHIH—'IIL 6 I- Exhibit A Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in LOS impacts to the Broad/Tank Farm, Prado/South Higuera, and Los Osos Valley/US 101.intersections. Alternative 1 would avoid the LOS impacts associated with the project, but would not be consistent with the City's greenbelt objectives and would be inconsistent with City and County general plans. Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment Facilities,and Storm Drain Capacity. Alterative 3 would result in the same impacts to water_ distribution, wastewater collection capacity and storm drain capacity as the proposed project, which uses the land use program described in Alternative 3. Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would avoid these impacts, but these alternatives would not be consistent with the City's greenbelt objectives and would be inconsistent with City and County general plans. Impact: Increased Growth and Additional Secondary Growth-Related Impacts With the exception of the No-Project Alternative, the alternatives to the project would result in essentially the same significant unavoidable growth inducement impacts associated with the proposed project. Under the No-Project Alternative, the General.Plan. would not allow urban development within the Airport and Margarita Areas until adoption of specific plans. As such, no further subdivision or urban development would be expected within the specific plan areas. Implementation of this alternative would, therefore, eliminate this significant unavoidable impact. However; Alternative 4 would not comply with the City or County general plans. Environmentally Superior Alternative and Feasibility of Project Alternatives As described above, Alternatives 2, and 4 (No-Project Alternative) would avoid the significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact of the proposed project and Alternative 4 would avoid all but one of significant unavoidable impacts caused by the project. Alternative 1 would avoid the traffic impacts and public services impacts associated with the project and would be consistent with the City's General Plan. As such, this section determines whether Alternatives 1, 2, 3 or 4 are environmentally superior to the proposed project, and if so, whether they are feasible. Finding: The proposed Project is Environmentally Superior to Alternative 1 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 42 July.2005 Related Facilities Master Plans /�SCL iA rla�1�l7t?r?l Exhibit A Alternative 1 would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts associated with traffic levels of service at three intersections. This alternative would also avoid impacts associated with public services and would not require expansion of the URL. However, Alternative 1 creates a discrepancy regarding the disposition of lands south of the URL and east of the airport, as described by Impact LU-2. City growth management policies say that the URL is the "final edge for urban development," as a means of protecting agricultural and scenic rural lands. The County's designation for the land south of the URL and east of the airport is Industrial, inconsistent with the City's URL concept and greenbelt strategy. The proposed project mitigates this impact by extending the City's URL south and east to match the County's URL, as shown in the SLO Area Plan. Alternative 1 would not prevent the development in this area from occurring, but would allow it to occur in the County outside of City jurisdiction. Therefore,this alternative is not environmentally superior to the project and Ole City need not make a feasibility determination of the alternative. Finding: The Proposed Project is Environmentally Superior to Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would avoid the significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact of the proposed project but would not substantially lessen the other environmental impacts of the project. Moreover, this alternative would result in additional significant and unavoidable impacts associated with expansion beyond its current urban reserve, would not maintain an open space greenbelt around the City, and would result in unacceptable levels of service at the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection. Therefore,.this alternative is not environmentally superior to the project and the City need not make a feasibility determination of the alternative. Finding: The Proposed Project is Environmentally Superior to Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would result in additional significant and unavoidable impacts associated with expansion beyond the City's current urban reserve, would result in unacceptable levels of service at the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection, the Tank Farm Road/Broad Street intersection, and the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 northbound ramps, and would require land south of the URL and east of the airport to provide further analysis of water distribution and wastewater collection requirements prior to development. The proposed project is similar to Alternative 3 because it has been revised to incorporate portions of the land use plan identified for Alternative 3. However, this alternative is not environmentally superior to the project and the City need not make a feasibility determination of the alternative. Finding: Infeasible to Adopt No-Project Alternative (Alternative 4) The No-Project Alternative could avoid most of the significant unavoidable impacts of the project and would not introduce new significant and unavoidable impacts. Impacts LU-1 and T-2, described above, would still exist. However, the No-Project Alternative does not comply with the designated land uses for the project area of either the City of County. The No-Project Alternative would not accomplish the City's fundamental goal of implementing the General Plan. Moreover, the No-Project Alternative fails to meet the City's basic objectives for the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ciro of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 43 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans 1 -5-7 Atteshment 1 Exhibit A project, and thus is infeasible as a means in of satisfying those objectives. The City, therefore, finds this alternative to be infeasible to implement. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction The program EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of the project: ■ Impact LU-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies and Agreements ■ Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses • Impact LU-6: Change in Views ■ Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D ■ Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment Facilities, and Storm Drain Capacity. o Growth Inducement: The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth- inducing impact. For projects which would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, CEQA requires that the lead agency balance the benefits of these projectsagainst the unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such projects, the public agency adopt.a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects caused by the project. This statement is provided below. Required Findings The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these measures will significantly lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not fully avoid these impacts. The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has incorporated portions of these alternatives into the project in order to reduce impacts. The City Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and July 2005 Related Facilities Master.Plans 44 Alrte:hment 1 - Exhibit A has determined that none of these alternatives, taken as a whole, is environmentally superior or more feasible than the project. Alternative 1 would result in essentially the same impacts as the project. Alternative 2 would avoid the significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact.of the project. However, Alternative 2 would also result in additional significant and unavoidable impacts on land use and traffic that can be avoided by implementing the project. Alternative 3 includes a more desirable land use program, which reduces some land use impacts,but includes greater traffic impacts. Alternative 4 (No-Project Alternative) would avoid many of the significant impacts of the project, but is not considered feasible. In preparing this statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. For the reasons specified below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable environmental risks: ■ Provision of new jobs: The project would create new construction related and permanent jobs in the project area. Approximately 2.8 million square feet of commercial floor area could be developed in the Airport Area over the 34 years expected to be the build-out horizon for the project. This would result in new jobs targeted to include the kinds of higher paying jobs that are needed to support a household within the City. ■ Open Space and Natural Resource protection: Implementation of the project would result in the creation of open space protection, conservation, and restoration policies and the designation of 346 acres of open space and recreation in the project area. The land use designation, together with the policies, will ensure that areas in the vicinity of the City are reserved for future residents' recreational use and aesthetic benefits. Significant protections for natural resources, including special status plant and animal species, are incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Some of these protections would only be possible through the controlled implementation of the project. • Provision of adequate public facilities for the region: The master facilities plans for the project will ensure that there are no shortfalls for water supply and distribution facilities, stornidrain, and wastewater facilities. ■ Implementation of the General Plan: The project implements a major portion of the General Plan by allowing for the annexation of the Airport Area. The annexation will allow the City to pursue its existing policies for the area such as greenbelt protection, transit service, business park development, the creation of high quality public and private facilities to support the on-going service of the Airport to the region, and growth management. • Consistency Between City and County Plans: The project incorporates portions of Alternative 3 in order to insure consistency between City and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ciro of San-L.IS Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 45 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans - Atta;hment 1 -' Exhibit A. County plans for the area south of the URL and east of the airport. The implementation of the land use program outlined in Alternative 3 fully mitigates Impact LU-2, however it also results in significant and unavoidable impacts to land use, traffic and public services. Nevertheless, consistency between City and County plans is considered. critical for achieving other important General Plan goals such as the establishment of a permanent greenbelt south of the City, agricultural preservation, higher quality urban design, improved drainage and waterway management, provision of adequate public facilities, improved airport safety and mitigation for project related traffic impacts. Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits.. Dated.- ,:200-5 Dave Romero Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo Findings of Fact and Staiemeni of Overriding Considerations City of Sa_n Luis Obispo for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 46 July 2005 Related Facilities Master Plans Aft-a-hment 1 Z 3 d t 0 R o m O C O R Q 0. ap c0 = oXE Ioo 'm � ` off .: o `d 'o o = > . y O N . F a` msQ la D . .9 0 0, m i Occ d O 6 gyp+, U�.• C C C y r•� 'N' I r•� •N G. V N g ¢ Udo Ua0 U � � oo CD CL i o w ICA CD E00 `00 o o. .. �•= � = 00 LLEa. UJ UJ a` a v m ro o 0 c i c 2 R Oo y vi o W5 ^� C E tOj O Oca ( O O O O c u'. von o d y U O c4 R N v, w Q w C1 H E Q. to '.0 0 G�~ h H L c� C O >, y D' O O O R y i cd 'C .O >1 'D h v N d 2 n °L' oo C N. ' N C: y m O O Q O w CLO I O C w •E y 7 U M O •O C aC+ E' C i d y O c0.3 ' Q r R O l CL C N M N N > > fa O n O CL O O .Oy oo CC O O C O y s y w O O > y E OL O a .N C O R U •C W = ' .�. R O p� 'O a I •y C R > .3 F" •C ui is U :U �.• w m � z o � ? � s o -^ Z � c E' __ a :: p a� o, E o ve] C y - C U R 4) 7 p 5 p d a cd R C1 ❑ O •O �3 C _ 7 — 00 vi L '" R ++ L O y .. y 'O. C C. ". R (CQ in OH0 a6 N %/� 4� t •C ooa O O C -y 5Dw:n p O C R v1 0 0 O N U y 'O C a w ... Q O a Q O C v_ O O O .fl C Q o m = > o W) o n o a 3 y e R E o w o a._ O `�' ' 'fl t 'O C o N O O CC> N 0o =°s -o y R ,- a . .U '� w 7 CL• �. G;D Cc . N R cz . yRO O ca E' r u C O O — O O FL AC 0 0 O L cH uCi ea y w y O O w 'O u O C— C O p rp. .� O O C tRi = o U U s O O R L �_ O bo': CA O O L a lL. N aE-0 C 'pn.-p 'G. y CC wOR' ;ZZ o- N 0 �� %.� �,C —N N � Lto E CL U L 0� 0 L OC 'ONON .•' CEM C R O _ ` ccL u Cc6 ca i C) iOr ° ° ONE C CaR to E 4Oo Ey . L . L >OOHiVQ p . c . c p m G o o � G, C O = U 0 s `o s R a� yam° o c R o ° .. m o .. E '� D � ' .. u .� o � � moo y yw E � 3 �7 E Moog w .Ua W R °�' o .a fn I � vai � Oa U EU °o Atta:hment 1 LO o . T C C ro e0 y cc L6 r E > a.=° `o y - a o y = . m - ao•E 0 7 > F � Uc°� ca y T y C T O O 0 T U S U cC N G"fn .� FQ � A OO U `o0 i C c C E ( C E U0 >1 C I V C 4 0 O O O ; •-, 0 - m � m o 0 0 a ja a ia. a i c c 'Ci. U 0 U O ,O O O O o6 a a i y O a(L) UU yocz ° E T r •L Vl aS • ° vy V r I V erz co � � y " °e 2 ° c 3 wr .c °o v i o 5 � gU � > ro � eo ° c ev3o � °�' Ia :u ea a ° cca yuw �+— .. O -0 4 N O O N n 31 56 m y ! O w bp.v W e h .. . c > c o 3 4- y ° O y V ' yc �. � c y tea, c e � _ � 0 CU 9 a o Y i h 0. ° aci O v N F o .° " yo ° ° N C. cd ° y ca K ° 0 ;a O •C ° 1r „ C 'T i OD'+: y > C w y t p 00 U y p .O y O W i 'rp d V �.. C N N O ea E o i i� E 'c oo ao m s o y o 3 ti =^CQ GCa � N C -0+ U ° � mE � nE .+ >o o .. ( ° y + w No G c > E '� cc c a� 3 y ° era y o CC* O v •� O y o ° •> •p y E b0 ! C y p ca G y N V ca O y O y i ,t p 0 y R G S y ca rA eo t N ca U U .0 a+ L C* a IV CQ ca °� gyp o w a .0 0 Z tz c N E i p�p c ° $ c3 c°i 0 a c y °' c y a ° v ° ° gi b o ti L ! N ti y C 'fl > L y T U 'O CC bA .� O C «: i � y C r C bo d C p T -p0 C y y vr�i ( •� p N :0 w0 ^� U � h :: > �� � a� � °a :: 7 'yEEEoe' I 'cs .3u a 3 o : pp to `o �° m ? a°o o o ca a o �> .? '3 ,°-' �' c ca"o w •��� C y y ep p+ f3.E EC c i, w G. O N .0 w R N 0 C y O C y O p y > y -0 �' O CQ r0 tr0 9 ea v W b ° a c ( U -o ' y v ° a a y cr r ° .° c i C O ti Oo N-"O �-' C�. C) C E -0 y bA ea "� U N to > -0 N i Ca ° 'o > 'E 2 ¢ o y .= L ° c,s. .c c ,c ° a .c O .c > •y p N .0 ;fl h 0 U ` h > "cd ce .0 cC m � � L F) .2 �CC� O :° o 0 �Lac `K °3 � QEo � _ ° oo ter°° r O p I ti > .•: Q ca. c .G O O m by U U i m w O. N cs. ti N O - y `- m j X •: y ; � m0 ; C �C � LU i i Attachment 1 s o0 = n R = y R C Q. O 3 > O 7 > F- . 0.1 m'o cUs GO e`p'o n i i IV] •� v V C p, N O d CA G�+ h CA < i .a 00 A .`� V.j •0 i i C ' .0 d T O y G EOR. IC c iw` a I' 5 c o fUj o n. c s 5 s ° ° {� _ o C ;fl p .011 .O LO .0 td C u 0 C y ^U U 04 .+ U C C •Y• O U > N V V .- a m CU � = G I . O ° O G ` O •a0i 'c OO R 3 yCh=o � •O �«.o ^o M OV ° °C «. ° R u eU °o o vi y ysm c z 0 o ° o - ° q oor 0 7S u to O �. •R ,� >+ N 0.i «. R o rn d C 00 d T 6u I V W R a.+ •� C C _ y T C Cc U •� 'b o N 0 I M N `' L c 7 C6 O .O 00 U �. 0 E° � R � a s's dl � s a o. o y °' 'E En°. a -0 c a� s R w �>' R y N 'O ccz .0c .0 r cet u� C C O y i C• R N L 'fl L +' 'C .r = m O 4 C ti co .. cd v C 0 N 0-2 .: 40 C C 'C y U /R� - cT� p„ 5� bA w C O C E y rr O d > �"' .a.. ° C U ° C a C H _ _ N cC O• N n p > U � c ° v°' a ° E m ° 3 0 OC y E cCC ' L Q QD N O •C ° ,.0 U U " U N O C6 � 'y O U c. °v c aR R 'c e v " I = o y c � £ 0. aU EgolEVwo = �' mac °= ? icy tea. cr In 0) y oo ac = as s -ooC .. �. m j ' d .o oc oo � 'E n Z u o t o 0 P= ps C rCr U � 0 2 i ° e •� yoil . a � oCro> y � 0 yE o nu m uo ° ° EoQc _ E x I � oQ = 0 .50 E E oosv 'E W I Oa U 3 Oa E ° U U 3 ° y Atta-Ihment 1 In CD C 0 0 NQ 00 E 0 fi 0 Li a 0j) 0 E 0 m > 0 = *= 2 0 .0 o 0 -0 0 m 0 C,4 0 0 0 C u C 04"0 0 C 0 ca M :=to ca C > 0 E E I.j -0 -0 M . 12 • uy b4 0 U C r- 0 4) C 0 0 U 0 u = 0 C M > -0 (U oJ *Z: w " 0 u 0 E 0 -0 -0 mo 0 r 0 = 0 to 0 m 0 r- > to c > *= M) 4) L. 0 M tu M -0 c 0. 0 m E bo cc 0 0 m 6t; J: 2 0 t PC n =6 >; m g o r- 0 w u E q. .�m .'5 m 0 0 E > > , os00 oj 0 > bjD 0 CIO) . W) C Co E_ m 0 C r U C .- (u E 7& 0 > 0 cc -5 > 60 0 .— • Q 0 tz 0 0 tj 0 0 0 0 C) 0 w 0 c 0 U 0 c 0 to ca — 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 - - C4) 00 > -W 0 0 0 0 0 Q.__ Ow w dw N = 0 * — B = E r- 0 > E -a 0 0 0 U u 0 0 tjo r 0 .3 .5 :3 0 0 0 A�j is in = 1 '5 0 Q 0 4- . .-I m r 0 E - 0 u -0 U c —0. 0 0 0 .- rz 0 C 0. > r- >1 C r 0 m Q..2 E cd M C. 4) CU 0 E u o 0 433 'vi c > 0 ca 0. w co r > ) .0-0 E 0 r_ rz 0 .0 > 0 tn 0 :2 0 " -0 I " M " i: = 0 E >> 0 u co C� u a E 0 0 IWO < 0 cn om E -0 lwl ON 1 1 -0 u ca :E on u m 0 x tz LU "It—hment i LO° T C E y ° _ '� F CO o0 o a 0.7 Colo ca b R la G7 G7 .p c m c = e v v a> 'o 00.c n` n c � cc H y n C •� y y i. C O 3 d ami e s n PC o s LI N >' >' y ° °' coi 9 C U � C mbo 0 D AL1 > o ° o °��' n m cU`s L c s 5 vTU °_° p c U coos ave v ova CO L y Q Ma '`' ° o ami W [•; ._ E a r to ° e o eo U a a U a > v c Ua`uc� oUo c ° E m •° o �a `• �°' = ce •cl `a m o v7 N p Zo O ° 7 �. .0 �;, bio 7 N N U V •� y .+ fl Ub > a� c a U II > > 3 C.es U � "> a� U U c o o V v y 3 v w ° y d U U .'d �h E'ca L C O L " w 'O O `"" d •� U v dA :C n N C r7 •O ••U-�•E C '� ��. N U U p�.� C u� N '" '� Rt ea O p ° = Y ° U e ' o „ � °.' ° o m a�a N e y y to y •V O .± cU U T•> ti N y .0 y •C C O `O" r0 o oo nc a 'MU = °a o iz ow oo° co F n> c > s= v1 Uo to as U E3 e _ 03 E ca U C la C O r Oca i' v O•.' L .y+ 0C yU0 •^06 > Q O O C4. C•� d cu sso..E a " e •so •D 6 ° ° ' o �.E � L cL`U c,0 -� 0 R E a c UL y = = E = iL p a cr C4 m c 0. m Q m z 3 r a 2 > 'E 0. E 2 E a '� C c ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ >> m W CC Gz CC v1 :L' . r -°o Atta-.hment 1 i .r eo 'a ooaa CD = = m ao o Z : o ° := :? d ° o f ai o o > o E o _ .v m o _ 'u d E: W 60"o a = e v LC I i c coLIS o o 0 ou Q AA 00 A0U .10 A I c � a i o I a 7•. I U = U C U Ea a a Vin. a is i c I C I C U I U C U O .V O O a ii ri c3u °L^� � a°i > � a) Ca.Iaa. oyvr c �ai � c to � s Co.-0 -0 s IQ, — E. e° 6 3 TE to3U 7F p > C � N �]a jam— � m CiC Nw C I CL E 05 rA col u Ca r r4 Y O.y O uQ d riYp •E. •O o G ° _ o >1 o o "3 o cn Cq 3 ° o '� y c L p v7 h w c E m e s o cl r- �- 3 c 4C7 Ev tom. ° �. ami M 3 o E y � p c�i a� n v fz 1 c I o A ca o o_um � M> o ._ w ° o c o � E � .Etu u �: � N a i > � Iy � � � .yca E �, o•y Ow `° s aEi cOa LL L -� n % .� a� G7 ° ° _& era o sEa`o o � � E ° �°. tioc ° �+ s iA � QE _ ' m Z � .� EE � Eo � � oms°. 3EL6 0 cg � o0 c a o ai > ^3 E � .� o 2 E c i. A -- o E c to a� - > v e `La 'Rt s c e ` = Te h E > > ti O co •+ :a c 7 •p E Ca ^_ lu N L .O 'to O '.E N m E "- > c0n ° ° � L 'ate co ° a`'i o ! E ', ri CL3vsCd u � .. i a7 .L s O L o E E L 7 y U ; pp vNi w m 7 O .. h .fl y a) LL U cn V] _ C `G i ° y U = N ca U `� O N h U C ar C�. L fn (Uu 3 U 3 ?? ° ca ( > C 'D O L y L a� y ° a � � ofi. •°—' Ci. .c ( Usp_ Q o tom m 9w � s 3 eF• ° U 3 E � ei .,= to bL0 v .b0 O •7 d.`, y ■ -■ ■ y O ~, w ° ° .or Y o o ° s a � a °°' � s cz E E' y_ .. E c CC a L R F i CO R.� Ca a 3 _ j Atta;hment 1 I r ° c = 3 v LO _ Q H Lr T T O CD c y 'O .O 2 ac E- m to cc c e c w j R to ca ° oo c o c o n o c = d T.ra .� I V T.. .� v � T.4 -m � y Q Op C., 3 � LLh 7L U. V7 :" O � 3 � eo c C I C7 T O y 0 y o y 0 E i •° ` O V O ' V Ov 0 C 7 n' •� d � •� d •-Oi d O 0 0 O O O O ii rn° n a` c o`, a o`. o. Y = y N a a> .? 3 j u u e¢ " y o c .. s v ao = N7 y y p, u U o a y > = C C d 'O T•C '� y = s .� N .r•5 yF = 'c ° � cca p .C .0 = y 3 ° o -, pv� � c 3a nn eye a E aai p 96 y .= °= s 'a oo ° O ] os yr -• � t iE, = s W6 cd ooet0 000 � n= y � E iso. .�+ p 'C .: m s eC ; G? O d O t. e_ a a� ° r C7 o c y o +� o := a E ++ LT > :. a� h E > > a o :? hao o G 3 F, 10 ❑ " fl a=i °' c v 3 a� v o � a•- er o• . a. `° w •v ° ° s c. o. :off _ ° '- � v ? � " ` � s � ,3 ff = ° n � .E yrn > h E .E o °= a _° c ` •� ° 'fie 00 rz y v =O =Q iIv _= o _ ` .. o. °ar 3 = ca� ?=3 3� xi o= e g oo _ D o moc a ° s o aM . 0. =c cu o= ° i -csu00o G.'C 'C CO aU � > = C . 3 = O II E ,� $ = == •c a sv�em n a" c v i E at = 3 lu �a ' y �+ '`� U .N C C t y L O E 1 Oi o Y y (3 o a e .r _ v o o = n i o E F = IIF d as .. .. —LZ 0 cw co .o . I (w = = - o� ymy0 ' oE ° U . ° ° co d � o ° ' Co = CL g E >CW. 3 c a ea 3 y ° c d O O O y= 3 0 N C "C d !•+ O M O (V a2 E �' c c o - = =a o ° via > ° v a: � o � E �.._, a 0 0 = = °' aE h = as � 9 Q v °• 00 D 0 3 :; s m E c E ° o y 2 E m o " c v s ti E e BGG a r ¢ 0 4- y o. - r— = � .. m c M ' c ao •. .= fl ': F at ' h ° N . �' = W .a au = E O � ._ 3O_ 0c S > m I rCGl yF Ca¢Ot 0 C L 0 . Ors o tiOq 0OOn ai G 3 a pn y� I 0 OC cu ¢ C ■ v F Attachment 1 L T Oe� C M C L �. Co > .0 ._,.0 c�'1 d td C rn U c y C h .T. )a c %� epCy eca p •C 1`�, eCe n, 0. .E .� •� `% 'y' .LN. U ° S 00 N eCa e'-a~ p F a 3 .E � a .E axi > yU m c" y C U C 'L•' UU U ao • c •C vJ E d 7C; >, � a UU U r W N V _. VE1 N v n. i s � O L 3 sCo a G F era a� Co y ts U y N •r E N Rt d N y A ! "" L r. V N .D L. y Op N N y L cpi o Cs cepa : to� =° L =o Uj .o yp Cr x ¢ ps o _ p on o a = E U y .y 3 0 C p N C p y ;,� L L � CSL = Ly .G c� pptp .E . CgCQ Ay E o E C E c 3 L d0 � E p O y .+ p — C p .E cc 0 L O c"L .y E p i 3 L a x p •- A y p m C ,NO `N„ F y E 0 O •C h L y C N'._ CiC N C U `� O E •C .G E ai c to = •N° =° 0 3 y v m �' o n •° p y. 3 0 .__ E' a�i � � iu °' j0r° a R 'n p E c p L " C G o �= EN 0. ,�c oozy c s E p y .� I u i 3 p L Qr Co •N L wI H tf) y ° d N Q M o .3 to 3 .� £n = E E 1 h Ci tovy L N 'y U p y OC = E C s > .0 L y ai L o ° o s 3CdCD _ ¢ ° L L. c pU to o a> c E o E :; Q m E °w 'E h o x c L £ E ' c o p (� .0 L 1«N Oy .Gi•QU.+ rc �t7) 4. [O •ftl v> p N E° wv p vi >, un o= x3 eC ,o ly >dC. " y rz .+ 0. c � E is m •, .. � Q G. ., y U ... .. cC � C y �F L W IF 'E ,C3 a� RNs — �F y Attachment 1 o o CD rcc i o F 6. ° O D v ( O ci i 04 C C .O oD "' OL = 4U U U a0rA0Q U .1Ov� O I C I U tCj � N U y 0 y 0 O. L�. � 0 0 •,O O 0o aci I ai ! d c v c I c c c o •-, a •, a i •-, a ti v°� a` n 0. a i 0. 0. bo 'O p .� 3 Cwr. C Q 00 00 0 04 CQ U CL•fl C ro ..� ., >, O ' w ° o C:6 -0 7a E rz QEc •° £ a aci b aci .o o En an w -o ° x c ° r _a 4)i > v e w c o. U oo•U "a � oa 0 m � '3 d sm .. o W QyU .zn n ro a ww e ° Wry 3 tFNQ0 G . m E O c roQ v yv cn 3 .. EEvoUsw v a �' 'b ccc °r = 40. cci 0OQ y 7 3 0 oO .°ya.�i .�vroN'..a Uo •°EL ,L� O>U >O oo � � �w c� 'K S° U CS so °o. °U' I eo _vyV s a'EL e�.> cc Q •rg_oW cvUo nm'C TLUwO _ U Oa T '04 0 0.a y L y 04 ff n ctu CL E h 0 .o vU Oy E ' m L v t7o n y .c. yy., 06 . •. Uo o onac y o = Uo o Ea ° o � o"�ge ' AD 0 Vmcc o Eyp Em o a > 5 e w � Qv4 ° o° � . °) C., . .o c�cn M. cu .y Eo y v a) ro opp m ' su c=o c ° c > Taocaiu c o Ue ro W?e r. -0 c c -0 b`°cea _ G p v ro m p ° Na s L m O o c'� °= v .c :� v = oL4 ° ti R H n > •� r aw a °� ° � � ro a 3 _ m o > E y4° � na o c ti e 'c'cr c � .v E N o = �, o Q n a; ti . o •N 3F N L c m a E o v .. o U 3 ej 3 00 p U ti ■ ■ s s s ■ ■ ! api 3 a� m x = N m o p E v E L pa 0 W EE � cG QZ EA a ou m E �� 9 AttaIhment 1 T rz w O r C a. E F m c � � Q Q m c H � r r a m c d c o 0 0 w'v� E m •i o q CUd d,p •' cC bq•E L � n' .y c U n c op E 0 c o o c w C Q' C U v N y ., .r eC " L d2 O O E y C o. > a °� a c°� a a o n y r t o m o0 o bo d ° = CR a� .c o N cu E aci E h "�- 3 s o m 3 •= > N ca bA O y 'E Y C y L C y o. a� CL .� 3 c o c $ Y L £ 0 c -• E fl � '� s O o e CZ N 0 c 0 o v_ 0 = v o -c' os � cU vc e . (ua aaao 0 is y y L s > •y O .C? ry, OD y 3 0 pa >' y CE 0y Cow .. ' . >v C'DyO uU yey_ ^>� oE amiE �� EU tu v1 O um.. = a L O C d C E. O 0 cC � r R � cd L F C y •� y y U U � U _� amici = ' ° o ° � o = 9 E co 3 0^ 0 c ao a m a� o v 5 o c a 3 _� o v c o'o G m N __ N g .E o `o i = .W fu C C L d N C C h.0.�. L y v..' O O cUi N ti Gp y' 7 U cCC C p 'Rt :r 7 UQ QO 0. `t L N tUC U y y N L O € 'O ti ' y C cd O CL -0 •E N ;,� d L •> _ > -� o 0 v C •° y y is U' >, C+ y '.o U > fQ d E ccU O > L ie N :ti Qj n' C d " y H > 0 �" � % c a m ., • L •• 0 O 7 3 C. Oy O C y 0 C 0 t: c > y O 0. r 'm 3 N m o oc a � v33 ELS � E3 v� �q Ua � .ate U °��iOn 503 - CA o r o - y o 0 0 0 0 © o o © © o x '•- c W Z 1 ,70 ruLa-.;riment 1 LO 1 T C. O U T T O C' ly-•� O m .0 N •^ O. •U cm co F A v Q oq c c c c n m ca' ° o °c `p n o a OV _T".� y T.� •y .� y � ¢ U .40 U .40 u j0 C O e Q, y C y C E CL C O Q v p ° o o = 0 0 U c o R a. c 0 0 o p ' c LT. a rL a� tn C V O ri 0 o 'y E y a=i s c_=c C y a e Ecn ° y _ tj o � _ ca. -, cc=a F: co 0 = 260 � �. m = n CU n a aCi o "'" c a°i E E 3 '� ° . aE ° .. rz _ LIZ 3 ao c E U ` ft E LN m ` = n 3. i s E v. a`i 0 3 "E ae°i s c ° ° oEE �' a c F � > s � E = v .ea s e o e = ` S "> v e Tal _ a� V "E r- 0 ° E. r L .�•�•' «S = U V l4 •° OD '" '� ^J' a+ RS '_ O �d 0 .3 ra o _ Na o .s aC°i a°i v a v = ! c ° �R E E c0 .2 n e v 400 x" ai ai ° 3 n .o > m = m s u E > 4 2 v s �O N E y C N L = O w L = = N V w b N _ 00 cC 3 E. E by N G •fl L � ' O C t 0 .0 C p � O,•p U O p IO. Q. y •� N GS. U 9v E � mo � a0 y, EEM ° ? � � x of .; EE" �s ..i c '° E .a ? Ueq C" iso, o d 2 � ov F. � Z $ o � Z d v G E O V t DD Qr ti QI— ''-' � `N •°AA U° °0 n ° 4y c = ..�. M-- CL °CL 0 tr • ° y � 'fir a � E .> tw% �•0 .a. i N m .z o o°_ ° � v A E DA v) aEi .a a i •� ti a°i � a U -0 o o U ° •= c ° cmc r� x ct O N r r L •p E W QS -°o o E "n v• d 0. zW /,7/ Attachment 1 L T ° N T CD C F C e O U tw G C O O Q CD C .0 P d T' d� E �. CO C U 7 O LL V7 N C N w L9 U 'C .E U N O N z N ? V c c °e a• ° o > f V v e y o >, N U cC ^' h U U O L C ` U CO N N >. L L U W to coi .D E > s v cc c E °� c So E L " =, N E C O. N O U c� p°p C = LCO O 7 '0 > '7 C c'O cd C N ° .`+ E N �_ iso 3 � � e E U � 'O ° ��° ° a E o o Cp e ° y0. E^ �- = 6'0 c °' s ¢ -d -o E U ° > c ce ° y � N .r,. N V N N C M r°ii cUQ U > 0 0 C U L p` 9 U O U Lw. c oo � v E E � v c o n o sY •_ .= O .•= C 'O L O N. 4. 'O •N O Od 'C .b�0 L W E .7 .� .t i d O y N O 0 — .2 0 o a N c O OO N O Z c i U oR o yao � ;- 42) L ° L ° t ❑ a °N' ° °° s E c H N 'E n a3i ° 'o Z ai ri `o o s vi s a� '£ �`• p ri Loo :: 'U Ca_ y .H 3 °c' Ca CD .. - L °� E E g o m = R •E U .E �•y 0 ¢ u"sc a c u- T m > E Z a ° Z > Z c � .� o °p � 'c .0 � � 03o`oCo 'oy � 0 'c syr mEw R � � E � a u, o. ;; 0 su G. N U o. N m N L ro ai >; E '� o � cc _ �, °3 � 0os �' cas, cN eN m c ° o U w a o U 0 c U °° U cL. a U_°? •° E E P. A 3 A» °e 'G. °c r u ° o 0 W c ° bo _ c n. Attachment 1 LO 0 >1 o = CD U y R y jp = a� rz F W V cUC m o`o•o eUe On C C _C R R cTi �= = U a s o n ° °a o a = c3 . Q a 9 40 U .JO = UUC& bn _ C C U P.i p p o Ea as an. c C. bo r— ;6 c U U °_ U C d M. 7 F u'. rA y T QO m e° c o •v ° •E CC U R �• y U c.. :. C O y fd L On R N O 4 N' O > N U LL v o v > L ">.s c � � ° aFL 4e R cz � '5 um- e •°qE •° o..y u 3 > 7 > u N 9 Q a� ° ;; c R v 7 L � :j � 4 E >o > o " e y °> ay � `°� � °� Oca � EE Ronk 4.0 U E _? c ao aci °. y = c '� R 3 ° n y C%1 n 7 R - > E c .= as •,. O c N = V C C .°{ C L E �' cd c«''Fc+'•„ ° N C LIS U E U U i y 0 o O N R 0 -Eyy EN E 'o^ c cc a `: m3 � C R dy y = o e° 'y cUv. cco N o = U E R ti .. R �- ° Cp y C y ca W 3 4 3Y � �.E �° a�°i � ma3i 'C aci o `o yC °. �° 0 •°' 2 �°, y y o..N c e 00 ►'C e 3 � y' cc U .+ �. N y C O.L C C '� C C. � :fly N C O C: ' K p L N 7 W •� U C U C to C C 00 y O C U U y R L � a 'r L 7 U i. N .7 C. y y C.y O U 2 E •� F ,, O ro o o ° ` ° o R R t 0 0 U >1 M a� o 3 'm c •= o e .o v e vyi U e� C n u o e o w c 00 _ o L' C R 0 4 .. C) c o i. . 3 E t= y °y' aoy e'? .. z ° caEo .^ ooa� paa�jy... c0 'o U g 3 E 'o ,.; o U y o -° ° C N •"• L > C ? U 7 0 0 N s 4 m N E ° E .c C c .= mo=o o...0 cam ,°"_ V F Cco L M y E cCC f C On = �' `n y ^O y ,= c Ca .° r Q '" o ° I C .E E 3 c cu c 3 _ 3 0. c :� u a ° C m �n p Z ._ Z p Z c . � c y r- � A 7 o y u 0 � .5 C E y _ G v f+1 C U y N R y = W.� v R 4 ^ R C r yi L O rd ` U E ° of o o y R a� ^ e y ~ M `Uu Q 0`o.°. a'i u -0 i � E Rs ° c°� �' ° U eas' e a 3 U 0 u m s o c >, a• n o ° .. 4° E F o ° = U U 0. 0 n 0. 0 0. U V1 y E ao t ■ ■ Q E y p cyc h W x 0. s E a 3 o E s -S $ ° ti cc n m /-73 Atia,-hment 1 y R ._ E L N N E U a U a l4 C Q y V y C Q Q V y C Q y V y C p C fn CL F m ° a n fA m ° o C A R R R' N Cn rn _ U O d O b O a i 0 G. �O+ 00 7L 7L 7 .D � � •7 � ,GQ IU .� O U .� O U ..10 U .aO i 00 i i C i � C C I C C i C U V C I V C i n c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 as I to 0 e c c C U U C U Or- Cl. C O O O O I O O u' rn � a` a Cl. s as � a` a 00 co OU C 'O I 3 v 0 > oo � 0. a ° c ay •• ° c 3 cs 'N R a> eEs ?3 X O •u i a E ai E E >9:6 , '> o y o _ ,',.C� d 9 3 �. c s o e h v s c U E j 3 V 4° `° e ° � U d °o as E a; U •_ ° e a0 .�°. � 'N — N .. °° I ° � U D E 7 aI 0 C R U U �'y N O ,p cE'S U cl .` 'C 'C t .7O t '+' �_ m t O T S y V NN y y c 00 � x� n" cd � :: s = os a� 4. yc o � a� a3+ U h 3 0 E ¢ �. R � •o o raj E 3 v ° o = o U o ."e •yam ° D �. ° 00ov= CU ^J y C CCS = O w C: 3 y R R =o 0 ^� c °�' `—� G 3 v° h y o 3 a 3 ._ 3 o C o ; cs c a n o U E c, c y o � � NR � L. u 9:6 C R EU E i = R vE• UOa� a, � E i, o a+ . ;; «. s c � .as � . C 3 E ° c c. o yco to a: cos a acil � :? v o � ;. ° "E 'o yU en > ss U e y u° a � ? c � � , —anis h v py °U' �, �a.= n c or v Nc = c . . e r -0 o i . a s au ur [z f m o � >+p ou' aci o c --O0 E ° Gly ani o o ° ° E ?; .a N O R Q N ns o R CC UrCc Q'.��•3'.�>` yR a3 U 'U.ca. .�c... O4tl to L cc .Nac�Uai� =E w R Qlu LO 0 > ^ O 41 Q 0 U > O 0 U „ fl .0 p . ca a= U a= v ) ° >> o a Ecol ca 0 N E a) G . 7 U CGOQy aE NTN E U -aCy w . Q ° E >, 'oE �a ' 9 a� : y.� � c cs - -, N3Ut, � eav 'c lynwm r a N e E C70.= °? o O N .E o -_ E ,, E v: > a� .. N o N y t0 N 7 N :G CC c O W 'fl U .0 M• ti •_ CC cr C 'O U ba R� y '_ ••+ C °0.' o y c o " ` ° •° R n c 3 e y° c �+ .. ° ° aci m c q a V a v o Q `O a 0. e0 ro E z E > C C m y N C y C �' N O'•+� W fir+ Qy p Cc R m o wrs 9:6 to ._ O C/� /ice' `e �" c U '� W E: Wn E L U N CIO R Ow•D U 3 N O.1 FSI A 4. N V d Cn Attachment 1 LO T 0 L T C IL P F C c S U .0 C O U Q C C d E U _T E � .. a eo C N C 3 7 O o w. r+,,, 0y w 04 U U " O U C C o .o 3 a��i a°i ,_ E U C N L Etu L C N pU Co d. O..O „� •C v C O g• O 4. C GO E �. m a c o m a y -p Q t 4- '� E ° N •fl .D Q. 7 C 2 E pp to U O ca U U C N C C cc G C C O O O v L U O ca N O N N N N U aY o� O. c LO V p, � '3C. 3 ° y y c y � � c�i �.. oboaCi 3 v —_ ° — ° E .N gs ° D ° E ° E D ci m O y oz C a O b0.� v y > :0 o ° p°, ° a 5 .� is w -o 0 r- Ca C-' N 7 ^,. C N v1 ea W C C� •E ca 'C L O O p �. L L N C N U r. 'a 7 7 O U C ' V m a a v v Z 7 u = vi O .Ni N O 'fl d L CU L ? c`., N 7 •_ U t U U T �" •o a a N O eOj "O j 7 N > > 7 U i i i i U C. E O O C4 m U O o y �- .O 'O Wca i i i C w 0 ° 3 a r � o x - W 'o Al .. iE / • ,. a .1 • • 'q /\\\ .moi:•1\ �_� _/�7�_/ FAFAMW AfXrAMF ♦� �i '`\ _kms ��\\///—/ ,....- '-:.'�o j agars IAW= 4*00 /:1,- . o �A.�.� •- r � � I s Ara". sols �j' T. � '.�•'i ���� �� Vii.%/�1..� WW AWAFA�AIL me loan gum w It • P•� � d `��`'�� a��—ice I..�}b to • •: � its" � r-.ii�ae..a� a�Y lam.•� !lIP.IIA� t< Sfci;_• -w4FWIN. IF ----�-.� - Attachment 1 Acloc D memomnaum May 23, 2005 TO: Bill Robeson, ALUC Staff Chris Macek, ALUC Staff ALUC Commissioners FROM: Mike Draze, Deputy Director, Long-Range Planning Michael Codron, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AASP Revisions As requested by the Airport Land Use Commission, City staff will forward the following changes to the City Council during their review of the AASP, which Will commence with a special meeting on June 14, 2005. No action on the Specific Plan by the City Council is expected until later in the summer. The ALUC should review the following list to insure that staff heard all of the proposed changes correctly and that the revised language is satisfactory. 1. Page 3-16, Policy 3.2.24: Add sentence to end of policy, "Changes proposed to the Specific Plan shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission and shall be consistent with the Cluster Development Zone requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan (see AASP Policy 4.5.1)." 2. Page 4-19, Note #5 to Table 4.3: Underlined text is added. "Allowed by right in Airport Land Use Plan Aviation Safety Areas S-1 c and S-2 only, where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees." 3. Page 4-15, Caretaker Quarters: Add note #7 to Table 4.3, Caretakers Quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 s.f. and are not permitted in Airport Land Use Plan Aviation Safety Areas S-1 a or the Runway Protection Zone. 4. Page 3-12, Policy 3.2.5: Add criteria (6) to the end of the policy, ...., and (6) will not create a significant attraction for large birds in consideration of airport safety." 5. Page 4-19, Noise Sensitive Uses Listed in Table 4.3: Add note #8, as follows: "These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) as `noise-sensitive,' specific sound attenuation requirements may apply. Refer to the ALUP for more information." Table 4.3 Will also be edited to add footnote #8 to all land uses listed as noise-sensitive in the ALUP. 1-72 Atta.hment 1 RASP Revisions, Page 2 6. Page 4-21, Policy 4.4.6: Add the following sentence. "Notwithstanding the height restrictions provided in Table 4.9, in no case are building heights permitted to create an "obstruction to air navigation"as defined in the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan." Table 4.9 will also include this statement as a footnote. 7. Page 4-24, Figure 4-5: The text box for aviation safety area S-1 b will be modified to say 50 people/acre, instead of 50-75 people per acre. A footnote will be added, as follows: "Properties located in aviation safety area S-1 b that are over 1 nautical mile from the airport are permitted a maximum non- residential density of up to 75 people/acre." 8. All maps will be redrawn with updated Airport property boundaries. 9. Page 5-28, Standard 5.11.1, typo: Replace Table 5.5 with correct reference to Table 4.9. 10. Page 4-23, Policy 4.5.1: Add the underlined language. `Table 4-10 shows that over 40% of the land within the Specific Plan boundaries is designated as open space. To provide for continued eliraibility for a clustered development zone, at least 35% of the land within the AASP must remain as open space. This table does...." 11. Page 3-10, third paragraph under Aircraft Operations: Revise first sentence of paragraph, as follows: "The Specific Plan is consistent with the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, designating the majority of land in the two most restrictive safety areas as Open Space." 12. Page 4-5, last sentence in left column, typo: Figure 4-4 ... 13. Page 4-5, second sentence in right column, typo: (Figure 4-3) ... 14. Page 4-13: Replace Program 4.3.9 with Policy 4.3.9. 15. Page 4-:7, top of second column: Add underlined language. "Open Space land at the site can therefore become a visual resource and can contribute to airport safety, serving as an amenity for the area as a whole.' 16. Page 4-7, last paragraph: Add underlined language. "In exchange for development and selective new development at the Tank Farm Site, the appearance of this visually prominent site can be improved and large areas can be enhanced to become environmental, aesthetic and safety resources for the whole Airport Area. 16. Page 4-21, Table 4.5: Move note to title box of table and add underlined language: "...are more restrictive than the standards provided below and may reduce maximum potential FAR. 17. Page 4-23, first sentence of last paragraph in first column, typo: Airport ... Attachment 1 RASP Revisions, Page 3 The City Council will review the AASP and the ALUC's proposed changes on June 14, 2005, and again on July 261 2005. If any of the proposed changes are not accepted, or if additional changes are made to the document that are relevant to the ALUP, the City will return to the ALUC in August for further discussion. /-7 9 jF�J��{.�qyE{x{hinbit E N (b Cb 7 ( ca c>s m d � Q Q c w N N (C cC O U) W CU ® a > m N A N Q N -0 d a- (n cb cm 2 co cis o CL / m a � Q Q a a f N S /Mc/ /rs V.//a cr VJ J J A El f N o M U LO X N O e f J o 0 /�V Attachment 1 �6 Ln Ln RM A c . N 'o O V m L •` O c O � E O r L +J CL m N -a _v C: V r>p c > C N � CU O vv Lt aJ o s O c v v v �, ra � C co v. LA �7 V CT i O v L vi N L 'pg ° o i OV ' N QJ ^ ICLV Q_ CL c Q 0 v — _O N cu Ln ■ L Q C C E O C m O gs 2)V :E Q N t � O � 0 c Attachment 1 L6 60 -6 bo A r: E .0 A 2 x m aoui IL lo� ow` � iu ,� � Q USA to >1 Ea 0 9:6 to 0 (D CA 4) C rz o0 0 2 7E tip E 72 tko m = 0 C 0r CA E 0 w > 00 a E i 2 . �E tor- r- U= 0 -0 C byo L b0 Uu tu > r_ Z "o 0 F rz b 0 r 0 w = , rz cl Cc ca 0 Z C CO CU 13 rz r r- E E 'o w "0 tu .=: E Cd v 'D W cn 0 t = = — 0 — 0 = z 0 lu 0 0 r- .= to =6 Ls r_ u d) Q B C 1 0 tola tO 03 L C w > tu E 0. m > E .5 00 M w 0 —0 aj tu c M- cd w lu Cd E M - tu 5 E 0 r- Ln C4.. = > tu M U (U r_ rz r-Er_ b0o W. bo w 73 r- 0 E U.- st. im, L3 Ca 00 E lu O'D 4 0 Er CLO 0 w C* to LU E E (u b& r oju r. 0 .- 0. > r E E JA 0 m 0 Z 0 0 vi 7 'N C6 0. r- a r- c C "0 0 MO LU C > >1 > E. 41 m " 1) .2 0 - 0 -2 = > > > " 0 Ic 0 > > li. Cd > C E E E = Qoc M a 0 0 eq to Z cr lu > u Attachment 1 L!a tE o c E m i := o o _ X F EaEahEE P4p`ola Caa`o�om W LLI ILN W Ic ° pip OLUL, L Q ¢ ( U `0Q a 000 oe C d i C. C E U = U = 00. 00. I I pp = a) O O O 'O w' cn° w N L 'D N O JUC •N O L = C O o cC7 y u i a w o 0 3 b a. e C y O.G7. c ^ L O p w 44i L c c O06 C 3 °' oC H nL, E s •gvv :o.4?' � E � �m cRc ° i� 'o o o > M 4r E O N C '0 C3 CQ 0 w C •N L 67 c c c O s c. '.7 ' C C "CI a pN°F ° pow ° F � � _ c Wks 3 C L U � U O y C yj y =�. Oo p0.q c O �. •� Cc3 0 r i N c C OC O -ti y•O 3 cNie O 'cv yG G _ d w bb - a CU °" RS w •` " •'' G� 3 O C• E 2 `. c E O •C y c . r3 N U L O En w' a G CO C m U P o •>- c y Eca m a o c •O m E ° i 3 o. ^>'tu v C7 o y y •p u = u u U E c w i c c NC I G lO N y N s. N O N � > mr3pO � Ni ; .. E v3 n 4. o UO :0 � � O N •� N � R.� •� �? ate.+ .0 v. y r VI c N > � A •� � .O N � G..O E c .5 E " c 3 db 3 ? c �. o E m N n a rs y p h .5 � •c .° .3 N �= o in. u N e R � .5 p oo ro a? �° a o� •� c° I � � c = v u ay .E o o. i E0 .0 e p ot-0. e: h 0 °> ` yOR cE •p 9 tu . vc :C oa) E o =°� 17i amw � > °w O p E 00o U U c. o 0 0 0 �eE QX I '; LU IL cr= Q Attachment 1 I Q N6 eo � y � � '.. y 'o :c •.. K o `..nv 5a W IL6 a E c c n a E� 1 i i ! I i t* O V O O O O '.O' w C'n ci a ci a i o c r N N c t 0 0 �n ryLV c N •� y � � y y yw � c 3Q N CD Nn _ aw > cCo-0G O o C o E-, °n O. N s U. • b3 0. N G0 0 �p -j CS . c0 CL C r0 .. y C N Q.'O y p C +'' ' O C w T w C .a '> C rn o 3 3 Bca ° cos u6 0 - = o. o y E = :° > 3 ° M 4- � ro c y d 3 " r y I C O Y cu E .D a y C a'CZ u .to 0 u n b0 O, N N o N Qn CNC y cCC ° p.� •'�' CNC d. .c "i .+ cd a _y O. C 3 w E �0 L ! w •�+ N 4. a y C G C..O O y 0 y o N cC.� w O .. e D m s aQ. o a ro • ° o - .? N C E N n o w a o ° E v y y a ° ' C °ro uO 4 ^DOw c.p y Gp 'O O CU C O 0 ny u cz OC ° v '•ONr to O 4.) C CC L :C. O ° °Cooya sa s .o ct Q ° E E 3 °v y7N .W•.=() c�L. l.' .� ^OCy. .OO> .•�NOO. "�CC s .�V ,N_p v C •`. 7 _y .. • d {u O y to E .0 o caC LL O r y E Our- Or� c W C O 0 C d �O .O c06 y y 'fl O W C Om >> CaC Ou E O [/ > y 4. O. CO — � . N : °E Cl. c a ° : ai F ❑ ._ no>> Qeopvuj W o y i QO cw ca I IL 00 O 'c y � QvOa� F Q jOC Ew UU 3 n.ti :e- Rlaa � Attachment 1 R ID a L6 W LLI 6 H o U O W y c 0 Ey iy a I �. to � C y U C 06 C d O o � O O O I a� a0 y ° c o c y = T o ? _O Co0 Y°LL' Nt.=cpqNV. .0 Uo L O u N Lu c a O N u cos e . 00'U E Co yeC3 3..�o OO -pLs _ U to NOOC 0 = E d v ° - • O w cOs ° O " ° z - = u+ .. y o w C •x cz W y •y '� y tr •C N 7 s. c ° v .5 a� " a o - 'o L ° o a °� o 0 cz s tu bo °..N cam° �.fl e ° � E o ai i `o c c Q) c .c c -c y M " a ca 003 a o v a 3w � c °' Cn y ° o — o � o � � .?• L. C T... u N .0 ° c� N p G" N .0 y b T C m CU 4.) +°>- ^ nws 0° ° 00 . N acn � N "a ° aal � v o4° o0 a a°i � � � oCD c Goo ° gib •°' g co °-' c o o � .0 u •= a°i � o E .. .. o � c $ �. a c ° _ " L u N c o •3 °. O .0 fz�� y `" C U app O > •° Z •° r- 0 u O ae U ¢ Nto r-O O s p N O h 3 .° v y =.. U h •C O N 4's cUO to y -ZJ GO dOdti C S p . P. p V U O O y C . pq ci Uw EO O O :O ti C u S C N N ".' V. O 3 y -L. C0 p.0 O 'fl 4. .N 00 .D .N y •N O w `O .y U ro t .N +�+ p 'fl O '� U yn-.O O C .E E 'o -0. E c °r' aui -E ao a, E � u a •a'-a uo o :c 3 � ua� � uc7 . gs cao ❑ � L ( fl so .E aeric � sbo o -o 0 oVsN � voE � � voua> , � ago '> > " uc E aO U N Y C 'O t G p V1 �.+ b4 C L cC'• '.CS C U s y cd E L C r o r– c E -o > y, .E a� Q o 0 Ln o E o ti N m u -c U 3'b E o 3 1 Ll c ., d ca Z 3 s cd L Z ca � w Q —dJ Attachment 1 i W T � _ � r x .� 0 > g x F W o`u o R W X d C n Q .o U ° a � Q f» Ua0 t , m Ic c c E c ' V ao v c d e fi v°� 'p •3 = O p O 'O Y 'O v O Y ,a a. caca 3 N O C = C O T N y CC :r w c13 H LCL y o C cEe y 0 > c 'U o °a °o .0aN fNnE° r- Aofmai ]o1a �sLo 'eraE' ypa to mo3yQ > vcz 0 E �c cOC Ea'G"O O > oO > = Ow ea wO a = m = w o U vUEa) p o N eg .O N ca au > " o sac ° s�. � � 3 = 0os�. ;� F r •r`n o � a ° c O 3 � zs ca �° s = ro = o0 0 " �. °o vi too In '°o �re Ons r� v -0 � Ec O 0 O0r _ C _ 0 0 ° a. OO C4• d � ,�••w E � O y 0 = .- a > O0d .w .b 0 O ca ` ' O" O M M ca cOO T a. M U N ULC i � = . n N 'O MO U C N.a , cd ~ = . wp U o . _ .YO 6 t7z ELy=.U a � n o E oa..tw a. "DU06p — ooro ma ppw u aUi "U7' 'Oa�o._3 >d, �m :N .� U �C+ wte •r•� Ya.' E�U EL ='� v C NE � cz ° U Lt: R '0U. U° = d0so > i o. ° >p .0 'ea ¢ OO 4" O ON gV M to noma � �, ° 9 '�E cd 0 ads aai EU cu ov cd > a > m > naC'3 o = m 0 tu ° cd� - 4- . o � � s � _ � 8 aos � s o o . � W c ^ .aEi � CZ, a. 0 � —°? c N N � .E o cam. L � o tz o .. cC .. 2 Ew ! eC «: O C a- w h � 3 � F -0 U 3 E 0. s M a � � w M 0 Q R c> .Y ■ o 2 0 Q E 2 o s a _ Atta-hmnnt 1 j e Z c I c c ° °3 y 0 W yCL C �'� R I ( wl o � v3iUa o f v3iw c vim G I v3iw c Q zz , i � o a c� o a •-, a - a -, a E � ; L o a i s c. { ri c. Cl. c. j a c. i 1 ' C C C 1 C C N i 'p Ci V C. U C i t.,) C U. En ri 0. a a 11 wL c. ! a` a 1 .�C � v o E^ y o ; so aci s '� 04 3 — c N Ow cc OZ 00 o m v u 'o c o cz E c _ U i > a. � � a � � c ,aw_uo c.•-.^ a � � E I � k. �>y :7. c� y E .Qo'+ O 9:6 °� c E '030 c o > r 0 3 m I oc ! � C7 0 � �s j > aci � C^7 ° o c E > ' o 92. wc a Cala) o Ecc o -o > o > 2 p,'--� p ° > "' wrn o � •° c � wcn h L C j m 3 -uo E o a oc v o t " o,vp � r .a o a °`? y c ° t t h os O 0p N L Cd " �O CQ 22. L � C C �•' td ooc +. '> °' a `n — ° c °' � o = tioe � 'o aL 3 0 ' o ! � _ o o a yo i °� "� � i � 'D u .PCI E — o,• � c o •- ! L '3 � `° 4 c s y M u •- G. 3 s g ! ac a v .. c jC1. 3 c cs N " m cNC 3 N O �' O L -o �o .. ' — c 'o a a; -oo! .r' m c :`� E Q .. •o.y Y �o'_ 'O q0 y � ! ems -; � v c Q i '� � � c o v c o •� o L > v c � C d o Usp d o ens '> s qty.. Q N v as d c? a is cp -o � •� .o c � .. X 0bA O O ddf3. = N N . ' a > Cs oa F u 0.Q R a Attachment 1 T m i o a+ a x F CC e`o'o m ( A v 6 C .T vim L c =0 0o Qin T . I T . 0't� vCl0'�� 0Q: - ao c I aci = I a E c j c o n 'o 0 0 0 En. as � w00a c I c C U V O o o O O j 0 0 i i O to c 3: ° ° .O a. s.•O !- ca b°o w y c. .. c N c n a e c = a ms �'3 � o � .c°-. a o a �LL1x,= aKi a a °�' to 44 c 0 ELI W 06 N O C -0 •fl eaw � :0 _ o h Qw ca p o •o e a o i a s '� ai n. o�• .o d bs. � a oma ,. ' Son � 'caEivo = = w p o y o 0 e ms c °� o v E � " c o � oUF y = yo, a`� ° °c. � � = o Q == o cci oAQ �- w L 3 ab ais U s °onQo to 6 °A " ' ypto coe .o 0 o p 0ari p, ea, hc En ' ° O N ` -- — c 3 .C. O y O L N y'.0 O o o O wu o a o °p � o L y E bA p p a _ aoi fl ' a c p v i o °' F� c 4 F y ° .c o 0 0 ,o o. a 0. c .N o. �, o o aEi y Es = `—E' ' os e; u ° ° o uU G ° ° E ,� oo > 0 D0y g c.� s E = aci vv o `° ' ._� � . ° U yQri .'' = s v .5 n° v o R Cyd ° c a� m fl o o C7 E 3 a u N = O N ow C U C O N C T c�C •�U '� C O O N y O C .T+ C LL R = 'O 10.. .00 LL ..: •+ N U .- > 0. p•, - iw. 'p„ 0 T o. 7 .y O •� o- to y W O, y cOe o N 3 aci y ° E a Q c E �O c = a��i >' Q `a y D N o L y •oW °� EI s ^ yo y o 0 0 . 00 'L o ai ° a c 9:6 o v i u ._ .� ° E yw LU 0i _ G U p N ce d O cC 3 — p N A ' 0 3Q € s 0 E c , .° ° n.n e ° E p aUi o 0 es .0 a E Q a o '= .-E. y _ °' y .� o' •° _ " ah Eo ._ ° 3 o~C 3 H y a� ~ os a iC7 cd � � � � ~ obi tu to pQ ■ ■ s . ■ ■ ■ t;; co c ° n Attachment y 16 0 z � � d _ = u_ .c E 0 V6 W EF A u W c m ° cu Oo�o ='� nc0Q. Q ¢ OvO ¢ OC on d r a U C d G O c C U G CO O O a� ami ELIS a a• aq ao o o C C y a o R y bA. 'Rt O cC 0 C? c Rw o '? o u 0 C. 0 N o 5•y E E cd m 3 0 0 cTi ^ ° �o o c E E ,. y O y = Q, y d O 3 C y N N �• cr - � �.' '� 0L op o ecn d «S O y cdi •V u-. -p O =� 7 0 _ y. R u L .� C SO 9D. d i+ dp T m L p •0 7 mt > ° 3 a 0 e e >�, °e 3 a > w o — acd uirl � L .L eos 3 �._� c ami o 0 v `� a > c fl S "o > U � � � H cyG 'y n' O 'flcd y .D :fl y vU h actU r- CL. c � y , NLCd o v yaai .� � w � e_ � n nui � Ev � _ a� 0 a w a ti 3 y n 'c D •o Q .y �? cl c vY� W 'G. m O 'fl p y_ O 'C C 'fl u s y H O O C c N O c=d C G N .e' C w = oo.� G o h N u L u G, O O $ .; 7 y pp ,n. p O cpC "O C p.m ;? dq H O d`C y 0 O 7 +U+ N 3 v 0 E > c p y y c=a O0 c a°pi D uc > .c to aci .5 v y a>i v `° 2 y - o a c y u '� > °e " c o .5 .j.."° O '.:+ U L y h N L > 2 y d `r sem ai4'O > OC :Cc V ' ca y a p c Ty c yc Q co 3 3 2 t E 3 Oi A Cod U a .d c=a U S c. C O N 3 = y O Z W � •� iv •� cs9 .N ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B is 6 Q a. cu`a �E � � ani Q Attachment 1 QN c°i W co e e d = � o n Uaso Oa � ¢ U .c�O Ga � U3O 00 c � c c c d U U C C CL .60.o 0 c c C O U C U C 00 [i Ul a` c. a n. O O •> C L ° E y C at '� C .14 C — t t d O V eVa of t — E �. u o = Q? d = Lo rM nod c i o = •> '� cl °' � 0. 0 0 ae D E n e m U = � 3 y N 0. cC N p U .. s O N E eY N U? O wl O o o > N ca c x to 0ar3 L v N R7 0 E C6 r CA , t i' !' R C cC O t� •� O O 3 o ? ° en '_ p ° 2Ea °nor oo=p c ai O N O p 'C 'D p f3. c4 'V 2 nom' C O. y •4" ° _ ., .+ = 00 Lc ° a°iN " off °' :: ° 8 a� ? o Nas � ' os �IL) Uv `o ° o .. E >, R R OG c a 2 = o a oo � � u � ° N ol+ .. o _a n E o - o p °' g D =° a .N o " '>> y ° N a�=i o h 3 E ? � oti ° Oo = , c s •U p2E : oo0s � a d s w u c U o ao•- h �e ° Os ca `o o '--'F .� = o U o o o p ■ u c � aw .5 � = LL 3 2 y � ai E U =a `=C 0 y E '� v c c 'o a vN 3 d r vs G o a, c 3 C6 o .. � ,_ � o N o — t p 0 E CL O N y = bq.cC .� N R O,p .� = Q y 3 y cam " °oto of ca¢iw a c' _ :o s v a� ? aai y E a ? c cWt =° 3 �' � . � s .Es, o � � o � E > •c � � = E a ` � � EE�- e = `' 'gcn Q o ,. o .. cnes3 �o o .a = o � Dd E 'o'n via) a a r. a� = C � " Nc $ oe ° v e+i W o — ° O 'E ° 0 O < S co o f n. Q S C: s E n. 3 o E A s Q � _90 Attachment 1 _T L U C C Z TO R ._ O I 'O O c ' C c y L y y E 'V ` _ I c U V. 4.. C� > C 4� y '> ° c d > C c LL F m a`o,"o m 0.1 n y "0 a i CL a v x W C R N r0 C" O d p i y a O d O d W � � 03 �.y .= I T.. •; a v � oUux uao uao 00 IL E c c i e T o o o a 'o 0 0 0 0 0 i e c e eo v r c o "-, a --, a •-, a a` c. n` 0. i op 44 bq d — ° d y a y D v y E _ •y`� °' m e vu. o o a ou E " L o v — v Q e� a m ; '� `= a aci c E .c°. ° `° ac 0. E ` a y y ',> aG y n n aci ° •3 c � yew c '°° E o H a `° u c :: x a a .0 a E' ai ° E >,' >+ `� c "0 o " d a, ° ce c a a� o .° C •o � y eS u = ° ro R v y a c w � 'v o .8 n o c ti y v3 a� '- bn c u a c .00 ci E �Ly>, aa c a o °v c .o c � � 3 mM .Va. m � ur E R p C p L- C y ? C. b`n y X'c� C a •? s '� c a0i L l ¢ c. 'c•OQ to o a v w o.ti v c u 0 3 y A y " coi L o E .v o 0 o O aG oA ° a °W L L. w 'o � i0 m ao0 y y 0 ". M U N �' •O N C.! V 0 Qa u yyy U w O •� m C N 7 .0 b0 tz N C eC Z" ccz 0 L u cs ! off+ cQ C N ??-��'L .0 4 0 0 D O y 'C E N cESC 'C L eCC F 'C =-, ! O L N Y O d - to ccs c °� 0 a E _ co ti '- uo C 4= 3 o ao o" p U m v a s o y d ai a� u ° d o c _ •_ u. c E ? u air c . 3 r- y fl y c y y ° y J o 0 a o m +- c OC o .= E o — O U es L o = T p -o = o o ° A ti y z ami .o _= CO C y y -p O. C 0. .a s e o n o = C C E v Q � � w =' o y cd o ; 'o a ° ° GO cm .. C E y c � � _ =.. CQ a .� ? = °: ° s G "c :-°-- w 0 ari 'c c °; 9 `o y _ o u c :O. 0 2 m 3 :: 0. o O `p' ° E o oq s = c — ° E G5 '> ya e o C E ' .7 c o '� n •3 = c um 0 3 3 is u i '°o :; = o ° •N E o aEi '� 3 aci aci a y o rs SC a"i 'y N 'o Q v m i � a a� 3 Tc a� C E _ u a c,'E � ; E, >, 'C E es •— 'O ._ N p,.a?, v 0 p GLry, ee u d c y c •� 3 y •— o r = y c E c c o b0 " u y .- .+ u o y. o ''••' Q U eeL. c° 3 U 7 u m •y oyes E e o n vi os a •fl > u y L rpi. 'O C i. G •C o = C 0 e o o y G C I d •r, .� 0 cY' Q. Qr E) o V 0 v�,._ y A a L7 s cs u •v Q . '; L c�a ° to ai c .• s E p t U um � LU w �i y > u Tr S u y m °L cs. �.i G+ c0 E L ou y V 0 -0 cn w i Atta.hment 1 N6 m *' a X E• Z L d e Q O U C C to O N Q OD C' .0 v E V a E ` .. a �o c 3 0 0 w cn C y Od •'C C .0 •N t O y N..[r t hC > 4. � cE N ` E 00 0 N' D o v vi o e •o•y E c N y N ° N 10 N C y ,U •C .c ° s d 4. U 0 R U CC 0 0 0 l' °C •i R R U •L R U O . R e a>i .y c d v y N o is ° R E 'N � 32Z -0 .0 � o � v '� 0 2 � ar -M -M5 0 ° a 0 0 to •� a'� co y 7 d 3 z d c a`e °_' 0 0 c a� v a� U c •-, > e R c v 0. c v.. w o > o V Ivi V N C o o N ".0 o y U o 0 9 4- o Q LL o s v a a IL N p 0. u y C 3 U .r N �' .+ >" 7 U N R R >+"�' W ` v O 'fl N i 0 IA i � 4. Ot 0 .. Tb0 Q "D O eNC y 0 0 C i i i i i L .a '0 ° C. N > -0 K Q luO ■ Ii Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. (2005 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS,AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE ZONING APPROVED AS PART OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THOSE PROPERTIES PRESENTLY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND ESTABLISHING PREZONING TO APPLY UPON ANNEXATION OF OTHER R PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APPLICATION NO. SP,GP/R, 116-98) WHEREAS, the City General Plan (Land Use Element Policies LU 2.3 and LU 2.3.1) requires the preparation of a specific plan for the Airport Area prior to annexation and further development, and sets specific requirements for information to be included in the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains general goals and policies relating to growth and development in the Airport Area; which may be implemented in a variety of ways, including the specific plan procedure as outlined by California State Law (State Government Code 65450 et.seq.); and WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo, with the participation of property owners, citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties, has prepared a draft specific plan for the Airport Area pursuant to the General Plan and the State Government Code; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005; and again on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the recommendations of staff and consider the Specific Plan map, text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Specific Plan with findings of significant environmental effects, mitigation measures and findings of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, on June 14, July 26 and August 23, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff, and to consider the Specific Plan map, text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires that a specific plan be consistent with the City's General Plan;and WHEREAS, as a result of its deliberations, the City Council has decided to adopt the Airport Area Specific Plan and an ordinance is required to implement the zoning identified in the Specific Plan. Attachment 2 Ordinance No. (2005 Series) Page 2 Airport Area Specific Plan NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, the following: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has certified the Final Program Environmental Report (EIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans and finds that the EIR adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map amendments, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. AASP_Prooertv_Develoument Standards. The following sections of the AASP are hereby approved as an amendment to the Zoning Regulations.and incorporated'by this reference to regulate those aspects of development in the Airport Area, per the text of the AASP: Chapter 4: Table 4.3 —Allowed Uses Chapter 4: Section 4.4—Development Intensity Standards Chapter 5: Standards 5.1.1 through 5.20.9 exclusively Chapter 6: Standards 6.4.1.1 through 6.4.9.4 exclusively SECTION 3. Zoning Mao Amendment and Pre-zoning. The City Zoning Map is hereby amended to reflect the appropriate zoning for those properties within the Specific Plan area that are already annexed into the City, as shown in "Exhibit A." For those properties currently outside of the City limits, the Council hereby pre-zones those properties as shown in Exhibit"B," so that the zoning becomes effective upon annexation. SECTION 4. Summary. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this.City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the day of , 2005, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2005, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: -- Attachment 2 Ordinance No. (2005 Series) Page 3. Airport Area Specific Plan Mayor David F..Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona Lowell, City Attorney L:WASP\aasp_ord[council].doc qs- _ Attachment 2 a •N T 0- G? a aN 0 a a ' a• >'>'r`> >'> 3CO CO a. 0 LL 2 aCD Co m c N CC. E cm O (0 m U •V O j m Q Co y N E Cl) U. CL CD tM C O N y ) C Y/ _ J i I N � ® `�• ® >�> Q � y� O ` .tt; •s�• IAI (Q QG :. C _ :'•:. C .•. WO JJdOdNSAVO W c fis .•: 11i. tl3dS Eall M all ; >> •'t LO laOH ::;:,::::::::............. O m • O Cl) 0 AN III2EM �I • " pi,� ���' x%/.71++.7/:LJ Wqw �-;05i 1 Ai� _ ,.•`6 ! tea_I.��si� ofliJ �-WV! olIM MA 1 ----.M-or 2i=1 ._ small tf t c ........ � Rte# - � i v �nb,ts,� I _- - '•fill - �_�� - __ �= III IT101 IF ., 1111 know ,Rlatex� :inn,��• i _ Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN,THE AIRPORT AREA FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND PLAN PREPARATION WHEREAS, the Council adopted the Airport Area Specific. Plan on August 23, 2005 following extensive public hearings by the Planning Commission and Council; and WHEREAS, Chapter 8 (Public Facilities Financing) of the Airport Area Specific Plan provides a detailed description of.the transportation improvements needed to serve this area (including plan preparation) and their costs, along with the method of apportioning these costs between types of development; and WHEREAS, the development impact fees adopted by this resolution, which are set forth in Eichibit A attached hereto, are the same as those included in the approved Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing on August 23, 2005 to consider proposed fees in funding improvements needed to serve new development in the Airport Area; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the provisions of this resolution are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 18 of the California Environmental Quality Act Procedures and Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposed fees comply with the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code(AB 1600). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that: SECTION A. FINDINGS 1. The purpose of these area-specific fees is to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the Airport Area Specific Plan; to meet the public facility needs of the Airport Area and to mitigate the impacts of new development in this area, by providing a financing method for the construction and purchase of certain transportation improvements and plan preparation. The Council has determined that impact fees are needed in order to finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development's fair share in the Airport Area of the construction or purchase costs of these facilities and improvements. In establishing the fees described in the following sections, the Council has found these fees to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered, the effects of the fee with respect to the City's housing needs as established in the Housing Element of the said General Plan Land Use Element.. � _fig Attachment 3 Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2 2. Area-specific development impact fees in the Airport Area, whose boundaries shall be as defined in the Airport Area Specific Plan, are hereby established as a condition of any new development for which:any of the following approvals or permits is required: a. Approvals of land divisions pursuant to Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, including approval of lot line adjustments, certificates of compliance, parcel maps, tract.maps and condominium conversions. b. Land use approvals pursuant.to Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, including rezonings or the approval of development plans, site plans, minor use permits, variances, but excepting approval of San Luis Obispo General Plan/Land Use Ordinance amendments. C. Issuance of any occupancy permit or final building inspection. d. All other approvals of real property development, which approvals are subject to the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo and which approvals are subject to the exercise of the discretion of the Council, Planning Commission or Community Development Director. For purposes of this resolution, new development includes any change of use or occupancy which increases the traffic service requirements of a development. 3. There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which these impact feesateimposed, and the use of these impact fees and the need for the facilities and improvements. 4. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of these fees and the cost of the facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which these fees are imposed. The estimated costs of facilities and improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for by these fees is shown in Chapter 8, Public Facilities Financing, of the Airport Area Specific Plan. These costs have been allocated to new development on the basis of building square footage for non-residential uses,,which are reasonably related to the transportation and plan preparation needs of a development project in the Airport Area. 5. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used only to pay for facilities and improvements identified in the impact fee analysis and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax as may otherwise be required by City ordinances, policies, rules, regulations and procedures. SECTION B. AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEES Effective November 1, 2005, area-specific fees. shall be in the amounts set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Unless_otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each year by the annual percentage change in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), all-cities average for the prior calendar year. Attachment 3 Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 3 SECTION C. ONGOING REVIEW OF COSTESTIMATES 1. At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in the impact fee analysis changes, the Director of Finance & Information Technology (Director) shall review the impact fees and determine whether the change affects the amount of the impact fees. If the impact fees are significantly affected, the Director shall, within thirty (30) days, recommend_ to the Council a revised fee for their consideration. 2. At least once every five years, the Council will review the basis for these area- specific impact fees to determine whether` they are still reasonably related to the impacts of development; the facilities and improvements for which the fees are charged are still needed; and the cost estimates are still valid. SECTION D. TIME OF PAYMENT 1. As provided in Government Code Section 66007(b), the area-specific fees set forth in Exhibit A shall be payable prior to issuance of building permits required for that development and shall be collected by the Building Official. 2. For any development project or portion thereof,.impact fees shall be assessed at the time of application and remain valid for as long as the application is proceeding through.valid processing as per the Uniform Administrative Code. SECTION E. DETERMINATION OF LAND USE CATEGORY All determinations regarding the appropriate classification of development applications by land use category shall be made by the Community Development Director. SECTION F. EXEMPTIONS The fees established under this resolution do not apply to the following: I. Other government agencies. 2. That portion of a structure which existed before the addition of dwelling units or the enlargement of floor area in a non-residential structure. If a structure is destroyed or demolished, and replaced within two years from the date of demolition, the impact fees shall be based on the service requirements of the new development less the service requirements of the development which it replaced. SECTION G. APPLICANT CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES If the applicant for approval of any development project is required by the City, as a condition of approval, to construct facilities whose cost has been used in the calculation of impact fees which apply to that project; the applicant shall receive a credit for that portion of the total fees otherwise payable that are attributable to those facilities. If the credit exceeds the /00 Attachment 3 Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 4 amount of the impact fees due on the development, a reimbursement agreement with the applicant shall be offered. The reimbursement amount shall not include the portion of the improvement needed to provide services or mitigate the need for the facility or the burdens created by the development. SECTION H. LIMITED USE OF FEES The revenues raised by payment of these fees shall be placed in a separate account along with any interest earnings on that account, and shall be used solely to: 1. Pay for the design and construction, including construction management, of improvements set forth in the Airport Area Specific Plan, or to reimburse the City for funds advanced from other sources to pay for said design and construction. 2. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install portions of said facilities or improvements. SECTION I. FEE ADJUSTMENTS 1. Each development is independent and no reductions to impact fees will be transferable to another development nor will an excess be refunded. 2. Any,person whose new development is subject to these impact fees may appeal to the Council for a reduction or adjustment of those fees, or a waiver of those fees, based on the absence of any reasonable relationship between the impacts of that new development and either the amount of the fees or the type of facilities or improvements funded by the fees. The appeal shall be made in writing-and filed with the City Clerk, together with any required appeal fee, within ten (10) days following notification that the fee is to be imposed. The appeal shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction or adjustment. The Council shall consider the appeal at an appeal hearing to be held within sixty (60) days after the filing of the appeal. The hearing may be continued from time to time. The decision of,the Council on the appeal shall be final. If a reduction, adjustment or waiver is granted, any change in the permitted type or intensity of land use within the approved development project shall invalidate the reduction, adjustment or waiver of the fee. SECTION J. UNEXPENDED IMPACT FEE REVENUES 1. Notwithstanding Section C.2, whenever any impact fee, or portion of an impact fee, remains unexpended or uncommitted five (5) or more years after payment of the fee, the Council shall make findings once each fiscal year with respect to the unexpended amount. The Council shall identify the purpose for which the fee is to be used, and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. The findings required by this section need be made only for monies in the possession of the City, and need not be made with respect to any letters of credit, bonds or other items given to secure payment of the fee at a future date. Attachment 3 Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 5 .2. The City shall refund to the then-current owner or owners of the new development project or projects, on a prorated basis, the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the impact fees for which need cannot be demonstrated pursuant to this section. The City may refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenue by direct payment, by providing a temporary suspension of impact fees or by any other means consistent with the intent of this section. The determination of the means by which those fees are to be refunded is a legislative act. 3. If the Council determines that the administrative costs of refunding unexpended or uncommitted impact fees pursuant to this section exceed the amount to be refunded, the Council, after a public hearing, notice of which has been published pursuant.to Section 6061 of. the California Government Code and posted in three prominent places within the area of the new development project, may determine that the said fees shall be allocated for some other purpose for which impact fees are collected and which serves the new development project on which the fees were originally imposed. SECTION B. SEPARATE ACCOUNTS The Director will deposit fees collected under this resolution in separate accounts as required by Government Code Section 66006. Within 180 days of the close of each fiscal year, the Director will make available to the public an accounting of these fees, and the Council shall review that information at its next regular public meeting. Upon motion of _ seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted on.August 23, 2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper; City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon . Lowell, City Attorney 11/0 Z? Attachment 3 Resolution No. (2005 Series)' Page 6 EXHIBIT A. AIRPORT AREA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Transportation Improvements and Plan Preparation Effective November I, 2005 -Airport ,- - - — TransportationPlan Improvements Preparation Total Non-Residential:Per l oop S m'- Feet Business Park $3,819 $77 $3,896 Service Commercial .2,875 113 . 2,988 Manufacturing 572 103 675 Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ALLOWING FOR THE PAYMENT OF A FEE IN-LIEU OF DEDICATING OPEN SPACE AS REQUIRED BY THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City General Plan (Land Use Element Policies LU 2.3 and LU 2.3.1) requires the preparation of a specific plan for the Airport Area prior to annexation and further development, and sets specific requirements for information to be included in the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City General Plan includes policies for greenbelt protection including Land Use Element Policy 7.4, which.says that an Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect.an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area either by dedicating open space or by paying an in-lieu fee, which shall be used to secure greenbelt open space; and WHEREAS, the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Specific Plans and Facilities Master Plans identifies conversion of prime agricultural land as a significant and unavoidable impact of the project (Impact LU-5), and requires mitigation for this impact in the form of dedications of open space land at a ratio of 1:1, or the payment of an in-lieu fee (Mitigation Measure LU-5.1); and WHEREAS, based on recent negotiations for such open space acquisitions in the area south of the Airport staff has determined that the in-lieu fee should be set at $2;500 per acre, which is an amount sufficient to allow the City to acquire greenbelt open space at a ratio of at least 1:1; and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the most effective and efficient manner for collecting an in-lieu fee is through the construction permit process, which provides appropriate accounting and tracking measures to ensure full payment of the required fees; and WHEREAS; on June 14, July 26, and August 23, 2005, the Council held public hearings to consider the recommendations staff, and to consider the Specific Plan text which incorporates the open space dedication requirements; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff,presented at said hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. The open space in-lieu fee for Airport Area development shall be as follows: A. New floor area shall mean the gross floor area; measured in square feet, of a development project, minus any existing floor area that is eliminated by the proposed project. Attachment 4 Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2 B. Development in the Airport Area that has not met its open space dedication requirement through provisions of a pre-annexation agreement established prior to this resolution, or through the dedication of. open space land, or conservation easements, in a.manner I consistent with Land Use Element Policy 7.4; shall pay an in-lieu fee as calculated below per 1,000 square feet of new floor area: Open:Spac'e in- jeu Per 16_0_0Square Fee Per KSF Business Park $390 Service Commercial 574 Maunfacturing 522 C. Development projects that dedicate land to satisfy a portion of their open space dedication requirement shall pay a pro-rated.share ofthe in-lieu fed. D. Fees shall be assessed based on the application date of the building permit application and collected with building permit issuance. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT- . The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED: Jona Maffi_"Lowell, City Attorney Attachment 5 CIS CD U Y v E Is S a m U o0 0 cmQ , U o v as QQ � � ' - \ mT Q T — � c coo __..._..._�_...._.._... <:. Q m m co m r 3 3 E mo c cc 2 ma - _ — — - o m - - k = Q U LL 2 d Q U oC -j E m m UZ � r l .... .... d N W I j I o 0 1 '. Y It pp o � w — _....... _I . g I F:. •w =-� ,ntt cd bye Z M � 1!!OH Ac �—/D62 bttacfi Table I M LAND USE SUMMARY FOR RESIDENTIAL & NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE MARGARITA AREA & AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLANS Estimated Residential Dwelling Land Use Designations Acres Units Margarita Area Low, Medium Density 60.8 685 MediUm-High; High Density Mixed Use 9.9 183 Subtotal 70.7 868 Airport Area (Existing Development). Medium Density (Existing Mobile Homes) 7.6 32, Total Residential Property 78.3 900 Estimated Non-Residential Gross Square Land Use Designations Acres Feet Margarita Area - Undeveloped Neighborhood Commercial 3.1 10,000 Business Park 68.8 959,017 Subtotal 11.0 9609617 Airport Area - Undeveloped Business Park 201.0 2,579,364 Services Commercial Zone 176.0 11,533,698 Manufacturing Zone 95.0 910:028 Subtotal 412.6 5,621,690 Airport Area- Developed 1-arid (1) 209.0 1.924.730 30 Airport Area- Developed & Undeveloped Land 681.0 81.0 6v947,820 Total.Non-Residential in Margarita &Airport Areas 752.9 7,916,837 Total Residential & Non-Residential Acreage 831.2 Attachment 6 Au_:IL ___ .--j Table 8.3 COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY Total Transportation Specific Cost Costs Plan Costs Allocation Total Facility Costs $28,4761337 $7179000 $299193;337 Marzarita Area Residential Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Single Family Detached $4,787 $161 $4,948 Multifamily $2,900 $153 $3,053 Nonresidential Per KSF Per KSF Per KSF Retail $22,165 $141 $229306 Office/R&D/Lt. Man. $9,219 $141 $9,360 Aimort Area Nonresidential Per KSF Per KSF Per KSF Office/R&D/Lt. Man. $3,819 $77 $3,896 Service Commercial $2,875 $113 $29988 Manufacturing $572 $103 $675 t-nent 6 e7O e7 O C" e` tD nA a H r H w CY w V c> XX LL C) m V IA S m 0 Lo X X V E` ¢ 0 c ra a 0 X . X X X x - a2 0 D cm E ' cm C W m e w x x � o ° k ¢u a ti Zp a W X. 9 (� > O Z c m Lo A O CO fA N m fA n p y t W c O is C ai C .4 Lei W W � daLO x x N � NCDo n N Q E.m A N N V h p Go 40 49 Q - - -- — - --- ---' ---- - --' -- -- ------- - - -- - — - - - - - eJ UIZ 0m V LL °a a v « ar d = On « x x x C Ti y 0 4 E' - -' o G C3 �oyf-pp-O --- -- ---- - - - - - - - - co ' w Q CL O N p W w O w CD z.2 E V) w a "o n LNo V Q W C= Co w N 0 N N C7 C6 CL a a (R [A ID E . m c ° y C L'oa O w m e a s c O o a 0 0 N a c L L eA v O Ec c°' E o 0 0 10 ¢ L`0 'o �Sc o yca c c w Cn a O. y 0 � '00 L0 0 0 M c (�0 AR m c cm 00) m m c um oQ a m « a � m a 'DE c m d a o`CL rn m Lia m �. Q:=° c c V m in H E j lWLo cc m � ca 'o c o a.D cc LL m W C y m m � m O Lu LL ° �° m m m ¢ c 'y a m � CD m (� m c cc m m co C %� 0 E `� Q Q — en m Q Q c Q 0 N ° m3 .. RCLLM fUe�6wTc (nM 'M a 0 0� = � m 4) eC 2 0 LO 0 p =' t J m w t t O O f0 � a c Win ° c r ¢ caaui9Li - 'L �,R 'M 0.m a a ?< d'� ILmEo ; amo 0000U- U- � YCLiL *0 bz O O C 'CH L. @ro « moo �° o ° meca � m ' YYo22 E V aero - - uachfnsnt 6 O LL N 0 CN 00 p 00 'a\ p N O w N v� r� o �? A ++ m N M d6 r M 1 bR w C r..i ER 6e? L. 64 G9 dd L 69 L On O CL s -• F Z Z c W w N 4, W *. m ,a� E LL r LL 0000m nr LL r- r- � �' y � D\ D\ D\ O� D\ 0 1� C14 rl C144 aE = E . , L W 3' a3i d 0 d M r a\ Ch Q •O. O� ON O\ 3 h 01. S U -" a! _ 00 00 00 o a 3 (.� t .c ° a N u7 r- �OOn vOOi o v L N V7 L V1 V'1 in N a ILy a .q � oty v 64 �, bs f» vsG. > s d — 5 _ V ._ U :: O d ++ n d C yy N Wa. yw: Q. U n � Nva uNs � 6 w 7 U. U. .� = R � w u o O L O� O O O. N a E, a E z I--- a 'v en ~ m eq � �' m �409. � WW. o n. E fto y N O N cc z te Tt IRT ...i b m Q (� 64 6sLL 64 64 LL 69 r scc wl d N a m c Q C O w�w, O y '� 'O O N. W T L Iti aIL r- g W O l� O\ d N V a 00 00 n y U _ 6Ns � R 46,q6Nsioq bo LL L O . E ❑ E ° ti Q o �a a � b Q i 0�. c EQ 3 > 03 E -- as 0 = rz wl L. x g 99 Z 9x0 Q Z Oen .. --� N cn Afachmenf 7---- MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY,JUNE14,2005-7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, 490 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL- Council Members. Present: Council Members Paul Brown,Christine Mulholland,Allen K.Settle; vice Mayor John Ewan and Mayor Dave Romero City Staff: Present: Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer;Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney;Audrey Hooper,City Clerk;Wendy George,Assistant City Administrative Officer,John Mandeville,Community" Development Director Bill Statler, Finance Director; Michael Draze,Deputy Director of Community Development; John Moss; Utilities Directory; Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public WorkS;r Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development.Manager;Michael Codron,Associate Planner, Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager PUBLIC COMMENT None. .... PUBLIC HEARING 1. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT AREA. SPECIFIC PLAN(AASP). Community Development Director Mandeville commenced the,presentation. He discussed the purpose of and need for the AASP,the City's commitment to Its completion,the history and status of the Airport Area and the AASP to date,and objectives of the RASP. Associate Planner Codron reviewed the contents of the draft AASP and the AASP planning area. � Economic Development Manager Stan wvdc discussed economic opportunities presented by the AASP. Natural Resources Manager Havlik discussed the purpose of the Conservation and Resources Management portion of the AASP,including the protections it will provide and the resources it.wlll manage. He pointed out the location of endangered species and discussed remedlation of those sites,as well as mitigation of Identified Impacts. Associate.Planner Codron discussed the intent,goals,map,business park and services Mid mariufadWring designations,development standards,Airport compatibility,and community design. - - Attachrhe"fit 7 City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday,June 14,2005,7:00 p.m. Deputy Director Community Development Draze "reviewed and discussed the importance of alternative`s to the proposed project,-summarized the Environmental Impact Report,and discussed the CAO recommendation. Staff responded to questions throughout their presentations. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Jan Potter San Luis Obispo,opposed development in the AASP area because of traffic Impacts on Broad Street and Buckley.Road,and because she thinks large industrial buildings are Incompatible with a scenic corridor or with her neighborhood. Patricia Wilmors,representing the Chamber of Commerce,spoke in support of the AASP, explaining that it has been part of the Chamber's vision since 1992. Bill Alinas.representing Unocal Corporation,indicated that while Unocal is supportive of most of the AASP goals,it does not support annexation of the area south of Tank Farm Road because of Its proximity to the Airport He provided copies of a letter submitted to the Planning Commission on March 9,2005(on file in the City Clerk's office), containing Unocal's specific comments and concerns. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Council discussion ensued during which staff responded to questions. During the discussion,Council Member Mulholland raised the following concerns: • Suggested that the Cityshould not be involved with trying to remediate or regulate open space that does not have biological value and that the language In Policy 3.2 24 should be deleted. Also questioned the desirability of annexing contaminated lands(page 3.16). Staff clarified the intent of the policy,noting that It is an attempt to respond to concerns raised by property owners. • Ouestloned the head for the City to develop a comprehensive development and conservation plan as indicated in.Pollcy 4.3.6 for the Tank Faun Site If the plan must be approved by the federal government or a regional board(page 3-12). Staff discussed the need for this policy and explained It does not stipulate that the City will develop or prepare the pian. Rather, it indicates that the plan Is a prerequisite to approving development • Questioned the feasibllity'of Including the guidelines for building orientation and setbacks in the AASP(page 5-11). Staff explained that theseguidelines encourage parking behind buildings,but does not eliminate front setbacks,landscaping or other standards requiring the preservation of views. • Suggested that consideration should be given to Including,maintaining and protecting views from places other than roadways(page 5-20). Staff referenced other standards that exist to preserve views of scenic resources,clarified that roadways are not typically considered an obstruction of those resources,end Attachment 7 City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday,June 14,2005,7:00 p.m. referenced mitigations such as landscaping to Improve the appearance of large parking areas and roadways. No direction was given to pursue concerns or suggestions raised by Council Member Mulholland. ACTION: 1.Reviewed the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan(AASP). 2.Took public testimony on Chapters 1.0 through 5.0 and the minor changes requested by the Airport Land Use Commission. 3. Moved by Ewan/Settle to direct staff: a)to modify the Land Use Map by extending the Specific Pian boundary south to Buckley Road, between the Airport and Vachell Lane,with an agricultural designation to be applied to land outside of the County's Urban Services Line; b)to exclude this agricultural property from the City's urban reserve, as well as to exclude the properties south of Buckley Road,between the Airport and Vachell Road,from the urban reserve and proceed with efforts to obtain conservation easements over properties south of Buckley Road;and c)to replace Program 3.3.4,to support expanding the wetlands north of Tank Farm Road. 4.Continued the hearing to July 26,2005,to provide for additional review of the AASP, including Chapters 6.0 through 9.0; motion carried 5:0. There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.to the next regular Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday,June 21, 2005,at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo. Audrey Hooper 7 CIty Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 715/2005 City Council Meeting P geC3hmefit s Tuesday;July.26,2005-4:30.p.nL some other way hold the builder responsible. There was also discussion related to the City's ' ArborM granting approval for the removal of one of the diseased trees. City Attorney Lowell Indicated that he would like an opportunity to review this matter in order to determine the CfWs enforcement ability,after which he will provide Council with further Information. He suggested that while Council is unable to take action on this matter at this meeting,-there may be some steps that staff can pursue. Council asked for a report back on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING 2. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN(RASP)(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14.2005). Community Development Director Mandeville commenced the presentation. He provided a recap of the June 14,2005,Council meeting, during which Council provided direction primarily expanding boundaries of the Specific Plan(Alternative 3 of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report). He displayed a draft of and discussed what the land uses would look like for Alternative 3,as well as various components, benefits,and environmental Impacts of this alternative. Associate Planner Codron expanded on the Land Use Plan revisions that were directed by Council at the June le Council meeting,reviewed the revised and/or added policies to ensure airport compatibility,and provided further information related to Alternative 3 Impacts as well as recommendations for addressing the Impacts. Community Development Director Mandeville.Associate Planner Codron and Deputy Director of Community Development Draze responded to questions throughout this portion of the presentation. Denuty Public Works Director Bochum provided an overview of the various components of the Circulation and Transportation Plan(Chapter 6)of the AASP,including the roadway, bicycle and transit plans. Staff responded to questions throughout this presentation. Council recessed at 9:05 p.m.and the meetina reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Associate Planner Codron referred to Chapter 7 of the Pian(Utilities and Services)which provides a framework for water sewage and drainage improvements to accommodate-the proposed development program. He dlscassed the major storm drainage objectives and physical Improvements associated with this Pian. He noted that the Water and Wastewater Master Plans will have to be updated based on Alternative 3 land uses. Utilities Dlrector Moss explained why the updates to the Water and Wastewater Plan will be comprehensive and will require a need to review all of the components. Finance Director Statler discussed the Public Facilities Financial Pian(Chapter.11 . He pointed out that new development will pay Its own way and that the proposed fees are consistent with the City's Budget and Fiscal Policies. He explained that Alternative 3 will reduce Impact fees for properties inftlally proposed in the project and that revised AASP fees will be brought back on August 2:ii'" He clarified that revised water and sewer impact fees will be part of the regular update in Spring 2006. He responded to Council's questions. Discussion ensued during which Associate Planner Codron reviewed recommendations made up to this point in the meeting. DRAFT Attachment 8 -City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday,July 26,2005-4:30 pin. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Carol Florence, Principle Planner with:Oasis.Assoclates,representing property.owners In the AASP area,discussed her concerns about projects that are'ln process through the County at this.time and the impact the AASP will have on these projects She asked staff to provide an example depicting how the City's fee structure may Impact projects that are annexed. David Sara Town Planner with HDR, representing.Avila Ranch project,spoke in support of including that property In the AASP area. He also supported the emphasis on transportation and transit Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Codron reviewed the following direction given by Council throughout the discussion: 1. Reduce the threshold for requiring participation In Transit Demand Management strategies from 50 employees to 25 employees. 2. As part of the development review process,require development in the Airport Area to provide for transit facilities such as bus stops with turnouts,transit pads and shelters adjacent to new development 3. Implement*Mitigation Measure PS-1.1,requiring development south of the 1994 URL and east of the airport to submit an engineering feasibility study for water and wastewater demand,through a new policy in the Specific Plan. 4. Include Goal 4.1.11:Agricultural Buffers,and Policy 4.2.7:Agriculture in the Specific. Pian,as recommended In the agenda report S. Revise Standard 6.4.3.2 of the Specific Plan,and other related discussion in the Specific Plan,to identify Tank 1-arm Road an urban road with a continuous 4-lane section within the proposed right-of-way. 6. Revise the Specific Plan to create setbacks along Buckley Road that will allow for the roadway to be widened to four lanes in the future,If necessary. 7. Provide a fee analysis for a hypothetical project based on proposed AASP fees. 8. Revise airport compatibility policy 4.5.1 regarding the Cluster Development Zone and add policy 4.5.2 regarding Airport Compatible Open Space on the Avila Ranch property. 9. Revise section 7.4. Energy In the Specific Plan to provide encouragement for all forms of alternative energy production. 10. Delete T-2.4 from Exhibit A of the resolution. 11. Delete LU-2.1 from Exhibit A of the resolution. ACTION: 1. Reviewed Chapters 6.0 through 9.0 of the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan,and took public testimony. 2.Moved by SbUle/Brown to direct staff to include the direction summarized above; motion carried 4:0:1 (Ewan absent). 3.Continued the hearing to August 23,2005,to provide staffff with time to prepare a summary of the changes and a final recommendation for adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan. DRAFT